Try asking the following...
RULING
DR. DATE-BAH JSC:
The Facts
What is in issue in this suit is the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear a fresh action challenging an aspect of a consent judgment entered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. The applicant bank brought action in the Commercial Division of the High Court against the interested parties in this suit in respect of a loan transaction. The parties to that suit agreed to settle their dispute and their agreement was embodied in a consent judgment of the Commercial Division of the High Court. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties as to an aspect of that consent judgment. The writ which had commenced the suit that had been settled was indorsed with claims for: (a) the sum of 1,381,279,658.17 cedis, being loan and overdraft facility granted to the first defendant and guaranteed by the second, third and fourth defendants; (b) interest on the sum of 1,381,279,658.17 from 5th November 2004 until date of final payment. Thus, the indorsement did not indicate the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff. The consent judgment, similarly, did not specify an interest rate, although it modified the duration of the period for the payment of interest to end on the date of judgment, namely, the 20th day of June 2006. This non-specification of an interest rate was to be the source of misunderstanding between the parties to the consent judgment.
The applicant bank, in its capacity as plaintiff in the original suit described above, had applied for summary judgment and, after negotiations with the interested parties, the compromise it reached with them was entered as a consent judgment by the trial judge. However, the judgment creditor bank, on filing the entry of judgment after trial, entered details regarding the interest rate which the interested parties have found unacceptable. The entry of judgment after trial, in addition to claiming the principal sum, also entered judgment for
“interest on the said sum at the current bank rate from 5th November 2005 to day of judgment 20th June 2006 (interest at 35% p.a.).
Endorsed to levy interest at the contractual rate from 20th June, 2006 to date of final payment.”
It is this entry of judgment which is the genesis of the further litigation an aspect of which is now before this court.
The interested parties, being dissatisfied with the rate of interest embodied in the entry of judgment, initially brought a motion before the trial judge to set aside the consent judgment on accoun