AGYEI vs. AMEGBE [1989]DLHC514

Date	1989-04-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC514

BROBBEY J...

BARIMA FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.

MISS. AKUFFO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1989]DLHC514
																																						<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" >AGYEI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AMEGBE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90]1 GLR 351<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:
21 APRIL 1988<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">

BARIMA FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

MISS. AKUFFO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.<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 0in 0in">

BROBBEY J...<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BROBBEY J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
ruling on an application by the defendant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as
the applicant) for payment by instalments of a judgment debt. The undisputed
facts leading to the application are as follows: The plaintiff-respondent
instituted an action for recovery of some moneys together with earned interest.
During the pendency of the suit, the substantive debt was paid in 1986. The
case proceeded on the question of interest payable until judgment was awarded
the plaintiff in 1987 in respect of the interest. The plaintiff then applied
for judgment after trial in which interest was computed at the rate of 26 per
cent which was the prevailing rate of interest in 1987 when the case was
concluded. The applicant however contended that the interest should be paid at
the rate of 23 per cent which was the prevailing rate of interest in 1986 when
the debt was fully paid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
arguing the case for the plaintiff-respondent, his counsel, Miss. Akuffo,
contended that the Courts (Award of Interest) Instrument, 1984 (L.I. 1295),
provides that interest is payable at the time when judgment is entered and
since the judgment was entered in 1987 the prevailing rate of interest should
be used to compute the interest payable. Mr. Barima who appeared for the
applicant however submitted that in so far as the outstanding debt was fully
paid in 1986, the interest on the debt should be calculated at the time when
full payment was made, i.e. 1986.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>L.I. 1295
is quite explicit that interest is payable at the time of judgment. To my mind,
these provisions apply to situations where the debt in respect of which
interest is to be paid subsists at the time the judgment thereon is given.
Interest has been defined in the Chambers’ Twentieth Century Dictionary (New
ed.) at 656 as “premium paid for the use of money.” That definition presupposes
that whenever interest is to be charged and paid in respect of money, the
charge is based on the supposition that the person to pay the interest has had
the use of the payee’s money. If the money is no longer with the person to be
charged that interest, the basis for the interest will cease to exist. In other
words, interest is not chargeable on non-existing indebtedness.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Interest
itself is regarded as money earned on money. This is why it is related to the
specific amount in the possession of the person to pay the interest. If there
is no money, there cannot be interest. This interpretation, if nothing at all,
accords with commonsense. To interpret L.I. 1295 otherwise and literally by
exacting interest in respect of indebtedness which ceased to exist in 1987 will
be an affront to commonsense.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my
judgment, the interest payable should be calculated at the rate prevailing in
1986 when the final indebtedness was cleared by full payment and no money of
the plaintiff-respondent continued to be with the applicant. That rate was 23
per cent and not 26 per cent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For the
avoidance of doubt, it is further decided that the interest to be paid should
be on the amount outstanding at any given moment when the interest is
calculated. In other words, the 23 per cent should be computed up till August
1986 on the basis of ¢92,000 which was outstanding until August 1986 before the
applicant paid ¢33,000. Between August and December 1986, the amount
outstanding was ¢59,000. The 23 per cent should also be calculated on the basis
of the outstanding ¢59,000.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>