2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against a High Court decision which dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for loan repayment, holding the action was statute-barred and Plaintiff failed to prove the debt. The Appellate Court reviewed the entire record and affirmed. Key legal principles covered include the burden of proof, the statute of limitations for mortgage actions, and obligations of appellate courts.
IRENE CHARITY LARBI (MRS.) J.A.
The Court held as follows: -“From the totality of the evidence on record the court is satisfied that the Defendants do not owe the Plaintiff at all and that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Defendants are indebted to it in respect of the loan advanced to the Defendants in the year 2002. Otherwise the action is statute barred. The Plaintiff’s claims are therefore dismissed. Costs of Gh₵5,000.00 for the Defendants against the Plaintiff.
45 per annum on the indebtedness aforementioned from 9th November, 2010 up till date of final payment.
b) Interest at the agreed rate of 34.45 per annum on the indebtedness aforementioned from 9th November, 2010 up till date of final payment.
c) (In the alternative) an order for the judicial sale of No. C21 Dansoman Housing Estate, Accra the subject matter of a mortgage dated 16th October, 2002 and registered as AR/6845/2002.
The said loan was to attract an interest of 4. 5% per mensem and it was to assist the Defendant procure materials for a contract it was undertaking for the Ministry of Local Government.
To secure the re-payment of the loan, the 5th Defendant mortgaged her immovable property situate at No. C. 21 Dansoman Housing Estates, Accra to the Plaintiff in addition to executing a Directors Guarantee dated 4th August, 2005.
By an offer letter dated 18th May, 2009 the 1st Defendant’s total indebtedness on the loan which stood at Gh₵836, 518.
As at 9th November, 2010 the total indebtedness of the Defendants stood at Gh₵1, 207, 639.
53 with interest continuing to accrue at the contractual rate.
The Plaintiff claimed the Defendants had persistently refused to settle the accrued interest hence the issuance of the writ.