CITY INVESTMENT CO LTD vs PRINT CONSULT LTD AND ANOTHER [1999]DLHC120

Date	1999-03-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLHC120

DORDZIE J

AWADZI FOR THE PLAINTIFF APPLICANT.

NANA KWESI AGYEMAN PREMPEH FOR THE DEFENDANT RESPONDENTS.

[1999]DLHC120
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">CITY INVESTMENT CO LTD<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">PRINT CONSULT LTD AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
1 GLR 640<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date:
30 MARCH 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AWADZI
FOR THE PLAINTIFF APPLICANT.NANA KWESI AGYEMAN PREMPEH
FOR THE DEFENDANT RESPONDENTS.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:DORDZIE J___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT
OF DORDZIE J.<o:p></o:p>By
an agreement dated 27 March 1997 the first defendant company took a loan
facility of ¢20 million from the plaintiff-company, a non-banking financial
institution. The loan was to be repaid within 30 days, and it was to attract
interest at the rate of eight percent per 30 days’ period. These terms were
stipulated in the agreement which is exhibited with this application as exhibit
B. The second defendant guaranteed the loan.<o:p></o:p>As
at 18 June 1998 the defendants had not fully paid the loan. There was an
outstanding balance of ¢14,757,624.87. The plaintiff therefore brought this
action for payment of this amount plus the accrued interest at eight percent
from 18 June 1998 to the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>In
the present application, the plaintiff is asking for summary judgment under
Order 14, rr 1 and 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A)
as amended by the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) (No 2) Rules, 1977
(LI 1129). The defendant filed a statement of defence and opposed the summons
for summary judgment on the following grounds:<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)
That they have filed a defence that raises triable issues <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)
By the said defence their position is that the interest charged by the
plaintiff on the loan is too exorbitant and excessive and it makes the
transaction harsh and unconscionable. The court should therefore reopen the
transaction under the Loans Recovery Ordinance, Cap 175 (1951 Rev). <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)
The interest the plaintiff ought to have charged is 42 percent per annum and
going by that rate, they do not owe the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p>In
arguing the summons, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Cap 175 is not
applicable to the transaction in question. The applicable law is the Financial
Institutions (Non-Banking) Law, 1993 (PNDCL 328), and if section 3 of Cap 175
and section 2 of the Moneylenders Ordinance, Cap 176 (1951 Rev) are read
together with PNDCL 328, it is clear that the operation of Cap 175 is ousted in
the transaction in question.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff company is a non-banking financial institution established under
PNDCL 328. Under section 4 of this Law the Bank of Ghana issues licences to
such institutions to operate and generally supervises their operations. The
Bank of Ghana therefore has issued operating guidelines for such institutions
as the plai</main>