K.E. POKU LTD. vs. NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK AND ANOTHER [1989]DLHC612

Date	1989-12-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC612

AMPIAH J.A.

E. V. A. ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

NII AMARTEI FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1989]DLHC612
																																						<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" >K.E. POKU LTD.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK AND
ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 1 GLR 490<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:
13
DECEMBER 1989<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 2.0pt 0in">

E. V. A. ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

NII AMARTEI FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>By the
writ of summons, the plaintiff-company claims from the defendant-bank:<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">“(a)
Damages for breach of contract based on the heads of agreement signed between
the parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) and a contract of guarantee, both
dated 7 October 1971. <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">(b) An
order of the High Court reopening the loan transaction evidenced by the said
heads of agreement and the contract of guarantee on the grounds that both the
conduct of the first defendant and circumstances not contemplated by the
parties to the agreement have substantially changed the terms and conditions of
the agreement. <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">(c) An
order of injunction restraining the defendants herein or their agents from
selling stone quarrying machinery, plant crusher and accessories situate at
Papase on the Nsawam road, the subject matter of the heads of agreement and
contract of guarantee. <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">(d)
Damages for libel by innuendo by means of publication of notice of auction in
the Ghanaian Times of<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">11 July
1983.”<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">The
defendant-bank denies the plaintiff-company’s claim and counterclaims for:<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">“(i)
Local currency loan of ¢754,698.91; (ii) The sum ¢3,011,011.20 being the cedi
equivalent of a foreign currency loan of US$50,183.52 converted at the current
rate of exchange of ¢60 to the US$1; (iii) The sum of ¢2,509,943.84 being interest
and other charges as at 30 September 1985 on the credit facilities granted the
plaintiff; (iv) Interest at the agreed rate of twelve and a half per cent per
annum on the total principal sum of ¢3,765,710.11 being the aggregate of the
local and foreign currency loans from 1 October 1983 to the date of judgment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
undisputed facts of this case are that in October 1971 the plaintiff-company, a
civil engineering and construction company, obtained a loan of ¢282,712 from
the defendant-bank to enable it import the necessary plant and machinery for
its constructional works. The loan which attracted an interest of nine per cent
per annum together with other charges was to be repaid over a period of six
years including six months’ moratorium on the principal repayment only. The
loan was secured by a mortgage of landed properties as well as personal
guarantees given by the directors of the plaintiff-company. These various
undertakings were reduced into writing and signed by all the parties. These
documents were tendered in evidence as exhibit A (the letter offering the
loan); exhibit B (the agreement); exhibit D (the guarantee); and exhibit 4 (the
mortgage instrument).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In July
1975 the plaintiff-company was granted a supplementary loan of ¢34,000. This
was consolidated with the earlier grant to bring the total loan to ¢316,710.
The whole amount was secured by the earlier mortgage (exhibit 4) and a fresh
guarantee (exhibit E). This was evidenced in exhibit 1. In July 1977 another
supplementary loan of ¢154,230 was granted the plaintiff-company. Even though a
separate guarantee was given for this further loan (exhibit F) it would appear
from exhibit 1 that this further loan which attracted interest of twelve and
half per cent per annum was to be:<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">“ . . .
consolidated with the previous loans granted and interest accrued thereon with
the aggregate amount repaid wi</main>