SUCCESS CREDIT UNION LTD. v. NIMO STEPHEN

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Company is a limited liability company represented by the manager in this suit. Plaintiff

instituted the instant action seeking the following reliefs against the defendant:

1. A recovery of an amount of GHȼ3,500.00 being outstanding of the principal and its

accrued interest of a loan facility Defendant took from Plaintiff since 2022 but has

refused/failed to pay despite repeated demand notices served on the Defendant.

2. Costs

Defendant pleaded not liable to the reliefs sought by plaintiff.

CASE FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff’s case is that defendant after contracting the loan facility of an amount of GHȼ2,000.00 being

the principal at an interest rate of 25%, agreed to pay an amount of GHȼ500.00 per month as interest

until the principal is paid.

Per Plaintiff, defendant accepted the terms and conditions, signed and was granted the loan, on

12th June, 2022. Defendant defaulted in payment for 2 months and made his first interest payments

of GHȼ500.00 in August, September, October and skipped November and paid December, 2022,

amounting to GHȼ2,000.00.

After several attempts to get defendant to pay, he (Defendant) pleaded with plaintiff and promised

to pay the outstanding balance on instalment basis: i.e GHȼ500.00 per month until loan is settled and

plaintiff agreed.

According to plaintiff, on March 2nd, 2023 Defendant paid an interest of GHȼ1,000.00, to

plaintiff making a total interest payment for Defendant = GHȼ3,000.00.

At the ending of March, 2023, defendant failed to abide by his promise and hence this action.

CASE FOR DEFENDANT

In his opening statement, defendant alleged fraud and illegality and said it was a short - term loan

he took from Mr. Benjamin Dare and not a loan from SUCCESS CREDIT UNION LTD as stated by

plaintiff.

However, all monies paid and per the dates stated by defendant is not different from what the

plaintiff stated in his witness statement. Per this, I wish to state that defendant corroborated the

evidence of plaintiff in relation to the amount of money paid by defendant. However, defendant

again in open court alleged the use of duress in signing the loan form and also stated that he was

not allowed to study the loan form before executing the contract.

Defendant also said the loan was given to him in 2 instalments, with some 3 days intervals. Again,

he was not given the money in an office space, but in the street. ISSUES

Issues to be determined in this case include:

1. Whether or not t