TRUE LIFE CAPITAL MICROFINANCE LTD vs STELLA AKPAH & ANOTHER

The Applicant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) applied to this court for a warrant to possess secured property in accordance with Section 24(2) of the Borrowers and Lenders Act, 2008 (Act 773). The application was granted.

The instant application by the Respondent/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) is for an order vacating the warrant to possess secured property.

In an affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant deposed that she entered into an agreement with the Respondent for a loan of GH¢20, 000. 00. Due to the economic downturn in the country, she was unable to repay the loan within the 6 months as agreed.

She contended that although she signed the agreement, she was an illiterate and did not appreciate the fact that she would be required to pay an interest rate of 84% per annum since it was her understanding that she would pay 7% per annum as interest. She also did not appreciate the fact that she would be required to pay a daily interest on the principal amount to compound the already unconscionable interest rate.

She stated that she was forced to sign the agreement although being illiterate, she would have wished to have thumb-printed it.

She argued that she had been making frantic efforts to pay off the debt but as she had not been served with any entry of judgment, she did not even know how much was due and owing.

Her guarantors had also not been contacted to repay the loan before the application was made to possess her property.

The Respondent in its affidavit in opposition stated that the Applicant on being served with the application to possess property obtained the services of Counsel but failed to file an affidavit in opposition to the said application.

The Respondent denied the contention of Applicant’s illiteracy and contended that the Applicant read the document before signing it.

It contended further that the application was discussed with the Applicant who understood that the interest rate on the loan was 8% per annum.

It argued further that the Applicant had made proposals to settle the debt however said proposals had been rejected.

Letters had been sent to her guarantors who had also failed to make good on the indebtedness.

The parties were requested to file their legal submissions in this matter.

The arguments raised in the Applicant’s written submissions were basically what she had raised in her affidavit in support of her application.

She argued that the fact that Coun