STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (GH) LTD VS EXCEL COURIER GHANA LTD & 5 ORS
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS)
- JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff claimed substantial amounts from the Defendants and sought judicial sale of mortgaged properties. The Defendants argued the claim was premature as the loan term had not lapsed. The court held that the Plaintiff's claim accrued upon default, the 1st Defendant breached the loan terms, and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants guaranteed repayment. The Plaintiff was entitled to foreclose on the properties. The Plaintiff was awarded a judgment amount plus costs, with interest accruing until the date of judgment.
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was for an amount of $4,227,516.70 or its cedi equivalent together with interest on the said sum from 22nd October 2013 till date of final judgment. The Plaintiff also claimed an amount of $3,700,000.00 or its cedi equivalent and GHC 500,000.00 from the 2nd and 3rd Defendants being the extent of their guarantee executed in favour of Plaintiff for the facilities granted to the 1st Defendant in the deeds dated 1st March 2010.
The Plaintiff also sued for the judicial sale of the following mortgaged properties in satisfaction of the judgment debt:
1. Plot No. 162 situate at Plot No. 162 Keda Noda Estate, Abladzei Accra
2. Property situate at Abelenkpe, Accra
3. No. 1188 Block 1 Section 171 situate at Kwabenya, Accra
The Defendants in their Joint Statement of Defence stated that the Plaintiff’s right of action against them had not accrued because the 60 months duration of the facility had not lapsed. As a result, in their joint defence, the Defendants deemed themselves not liable to the Plaintiff’s claim as same was premature.
The issues set down for trial were as follows:
1. Whether or not Plaintiff’s right of claim against the 1st Defendant accrues upon 1st Defendant’s default in the repayment of the term loan facility?
2. Whether or not 1st Defendant breached the terms of the facility granted by the Plaintiff?
3. Whether or not the 2nd and 3rd Defendants guaranteed to pay the guaranteed sums upon default of 1st Defendant to pay the facility?
4. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose on the mortgaged properties upon 1st Defendant’s default in the repayment of the facility?
5. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its reliefs?
The matter was set down for hearing on 26th August 2014. It was further adjourned in the Defendants and their Counsel’s absence to 4th September 2014. Hearing notices were ordered. On 4th September 2014, Counsel for the Defendant wrote to the court proposing an adjournment to 20th October 2014. An adjournment was granted to the said date. Neither the Defendants nor their Counsel showed up. It was again adjourned to 5th November 2014 and hearing notices ordered to be served.
On 5th November 2014, representatives of the parties together with their respective Counsel were in court. The matter was adjourned to 15th December 2014 and then to 16th February 2015. Hearing Notices were then ordered for 3rd March 2015. Neither the Defendants nor their Solicitors