GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. DAKMAK RASHWAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY & 6 ORS. (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS) [2007]DLCA7106

GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. DAKMAK RASHWAN CHEMICAL INDUSTR... [2007]DLCA7106

Date	2007-10-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/155/2007
Citation No.	[2007]DLCA7106

QUAYE JA [PRESIDING]

MARIAMA OWUSU JA

DUOSE JA

MR. BENJAMIN OSEI TUTU FOR YONNI KULENDI FOR DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT.

MR. G.A. SARPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2007]DLCA7106
																																						<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>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DAKMAK RASHWAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY &amp; 6 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: H1/155/2007 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 26TH OCTOBER, 2007<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">MR.
BENJAMIN OSEI TUTU FOR YONNI KULENDI FOR DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">&nbsp;MR. G.A. SARPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>QUAYE
JA [PRESIDING], MARIAMA OWUSU JA, DUOSE JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>QUAYE,
JA:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
the cause that is still pending final determination in the trial High Court
(Fast Track) the plaintiff/respondents, who are a corporate body, established
under the laws of Ghana to engage in the banking business, commenced the action
by writ of summons on 5th April 2005, for the recovery of ¢18,033.477,450.14
which they alleged was the outstanding unpaid amount including interest on a
120 days deferred letter of credit facility of US$1,000,000.00 they granted the
1st Defendant/appellant on 27th February 1998. The facility was valid for 24
months, with a condition for review at six months intervals. The said facility
was secured by the 1st Defendant/appellant with a landed property better
described as Plot No. 56 Ring Road North Industrial Area, Accra belonging to
the 2nd defendant/appellant. In addition the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th
defendants/appellants executed a joint guarantee for the facility. On the due
date the 1st Defendant/appellant failed to liquidate their indebtedness. After
the respondents had formally made a demand for the payment, and upon failure by
the appellants to pay, the respondents filed the said action.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The 1st defendant/appellant is a body
corporate. The defendants/appellants jointly entered appearance per their
Solicitor on 15th April 2005 and filed a defence on 29th August 2005. In their
statement of defence, the appellants admitted paragraphs 1 – 6 of the
plaintiff/respondent’s statement of claim. Those paragraphs inter alia recited
the grant of facility aforesaid, the conditions attached thereto and the
security and guarantees executed by the defendants/appellants in that behalf. <o:p></o:p>The
second leg of the statement of defence was an example of what is known in law
as confession and avoidance. SIEVERS
VRS. BROWN 216 Miss 801, 63502d 217, 219 explained a plea in confession
and avoidance as one which avows and confesses the truth of the averments of
fact in the complaint or declaration, either expressly or by implication, but
then proceeds to allege new matter which tends to deprive the facts admitted of
their ordinary legal effect; or to obviate, neutralize, or avoid them. Indeed
after the defendants/appellants had unequivocally admitted the facility as
stated in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the respondents statement of claim, they
devoted paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the statement of
defence to denial of the debt alleging that the parties, that is to say, both
the plaintiffs/respondents, and the defendants/appellants at a point in time,
negotiated the outstanding balance of the debt, pursuant to which negotiations,
the plaintiff/respondents agreed, to, and indeed, classified the debt as a loss,
a bad debt, in exchange for the payment of a lesser agreed sum by the
defendants/appellants. In the result of the compromise which was concluded
between 1999 and 2000 and the accord and satisfaction received by the
plaintiffs/respondents, the latter did not make any demand for the debt after
the year 2000. In effect therefore, and visualizing with the eyes of the
defendants/appellants, there is, no question whatsoever, of any debt between
them and the plaintiff/respondents. Furthermore, the defendants/appellants
claimed that, to underscore the accord and satisfaction, that is, the
settlement negotiation between the parties, the plaintiffs/respondents did, in
fact, release or return all the relevant documents and guarantees that the
defendants/appellants had earlier on executed or handed over to the
plaintiffs/respondents to secure the loan back to the defendants/appellants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The averments contained in the statement of
defence prompted the filing by the plaintiffs/respondents on 5th September 2005
of a motion for interrogatories under Order 22 rule 1 of CI 47, the High Court
Civil Procedure Rules (2004).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The questions put in the interrogatories were:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1. What are/is the name(s) of Plaintiff’s
officials with whom the Defendants negotiated the outstanding balance due and
payable by the Defen</main>