GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK vs. BINOO-OKAI [1980]DLHC2130

Date	1980-07-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC2130

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

M. R. K. ATADIKA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

A. K. OKINE FOR THE DEFENDANT

[1980]DLHC2130
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BINOO-OKAI <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 74<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
17 JULY 1980<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

M. R. K. ATADIKA FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

A. K. OKINE FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CECILIA
KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for summary judgment under the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954 (LN 140A), Order 14, r.1. The plaintiff is a financial institution
established by statute and transacting commercial banking business throughout
the country. The defendant is a customer. He was granted banking facilities in
the normal course of business by the plaintiff. As at 27 September 1979, the
defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of ¢732,839.68. The
plaintiff claims this amount plus interest calculated at the current rate from
27 September 1979 to the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The claim
for the principal is not disputed. The defendant through counsel pleaded liable
on the principal sum. He also concedes he is liable to pay interest at the
current rate of eighteen and a half per cent, but it has been argued on his
behalf that the plaintiff is entitled to interest only up to the date of
judgment and not up to the date of final payment. Mr. A. K. Okine, counsel for
the defendant, referred me to the following cases: Ryley v. Master, Sheba Gold
Mining Co., Ltd. v. Trubshawe [1892] 1 Q.B. 674; Wilks v. Wood [1892] 1 Q.B.
684; London and Universal Bank v. Earl of Clancarty [1892] 1 Q.B. 689 and
Lawrence and Sons v. Willcocks [1892] 1 Q.B. 696. Counsel submitted that the
effect of all these cases is that judgment cannot be entered for interest which
has not yet accrued. Mr. A. K. Okine contended that the interest which is to
accrue after the date of judgment is not yet due so the court cannot give
judgment for an amount which has not yet accrued. Interest which has not yet
accrued is not a debt due and owing, so judgment cannot be entered in respect
of it. He argued further that the judgment would terminate the party’s contractual
right, so the plaintiff must come back and sue for whatever interest which will
accrue if the debt remains unpaid after the judgment. Arguing contra, Mr
Atadika submitted that this is a statutory interest, and the banker is entitled
to a judgment for interest up to final payment, otherwise the ridiculous situation
would be created whereby the plaintiff would bring a multiplicity of actions
every six months or so to consolidate his claim for interest.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have
read and studied carefully the cases cited above and on which counsel for the
defendant relies. In each of these cases, the question which the court had to
determine was whether a claim for interest in each particular case was a
liquidated demand within the meaning of Order 3, r. 6 of LN 140A, such that the
indorsement of it on the writ was sufficient to constitute a specially indorsed
writ within Order 3, r. 6 to enable a summary judgment under Order 14, r.1 of
LN 140A to be taken on it. In both Ryley v. Master, Sheba Gold Mining Co., Ltd.
v. Trubshawe (supra) the writs in each case was indorsed with a claim for a sum
of money and for interest at five per cent till date of payment or judgment. In
each case, the interest was not founded on any contract express or implied, or
statute. In each case therefore, no interest was recoverable.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court
held that such interest could only be in the nature of unliquidated damages,
therefore the writ was not specially indorsed under Order 3, r. 6 to enable the
plaintiffs obtain final judgment in an action under Order 14, r. 1. In the
course of his judgment in the Sheba Gold Mining case (supra), Lord Coleridge C.
J. stated at p. 682:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“So
regarded, we think that the claim in the present case departs from the
requirements of a special indorsement in two respects: (1) it does not show
that the interest is claimed as being due by contract; (2) no definite sum is
claimed. All the forms given in Appendix C, S. iv., in which interest is
claimed are cases of interest due either by express covenant, or upon bills or
notes... Again, all the forms claiming interest mention the specific sum
claimed. We think this is as it should be. It is important that a man, who is
to be proceeded against summarily for judgment, should know exactly how much he
has to pay if he wishes to stay the action, and should not be called upon to
take the risks of calculation. A claim for interest which is not thus specific
departs in a material and important respect from the forms to which a special
indorsement is required to conform.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><sp</main>