<p class="mb-5" id="contentDlCitation" hidden>[2008]DLHC7377</p> <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: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">HOUSE OF REMMA AND RALPH MENDS ODURO</span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-align:center; line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 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-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">SUIT NO. AB 64/2005<b> </b> DATE: 6<sup>TH</sup> FEBRUARY, 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">VICTOR OFOE, J. SITTING AS JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p></span></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"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">I understood the business transaction between the plaintiff Bank and the defendant which had given rise to the plaintiff's complaint in this court to be as follows:— <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The plaintiff Bank gave financial assistance to certain rice growers with the understanding that after production of the rice they will deliver them to the Bank. They did that. The Bank will in turn give the rice out to rice brokers like the 1st defendant. The brokers will bag, mill and sell the rice and pay an agreed price to the Bank. By this arrangement the farmers had ready market and gradually paid the loans they took from the Agricultural Development Bank. The relationship between the Agricultural Bank and the Brokers was that the Bank gave the rice, valued in cash, to the Brokers as loan, and the Brokers were to pay after selling the rice. It was this type of arrangement that was between the 1st defendant company and the plaintiff Bank. From the evidence before me the 1st defendant operated accounts with the plaintiff, one in Denu and two in Tema. Statement of account of the Denu accounts was tendered as Exhibit F, that of Tema, the Current Account, was tendered as Exhibit G. The other account, which the plaintiff calls the loan account was tendered as Exhibit E. It was into these various accounts that loans granted the 1st defendant and payments made by the 1st defendant were made. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">There was another part of the arrangement. The government, eager to provide market for the rice farmers worked out a scheme whereby the rice, milled and bagged by the 1st defendant and other brokers were to be supplied to certain government organization like Schools, Hospitals and the like. A Rice Strategic Account was created operated by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agric. This account was receiving all payments made by the State agencies, in respect of rice sold to them by the rice brokers including the 1st defendant. Any payment made into this account to the credit of the brokers, after sale of the rice to the government agencies was transferred to the credit of the brokers, in our case the 1st defendant's, account with the plaintiff, thereby reducing the loan in kind given it by the Bank. The evidence is not disputed that the defendant was selling also to other persons and institutions. The claim the plaintiff bank is making against the defendant is in respect of loan mainly in the form of rice the 1st defendant has lifted from the plaintiff's warehouse, sold but, has allegedly refused to pay. At the close of evidence I found several pieces of evidence put before the court in the course of trial unnecessary. By plaintiff pleadings they advanced 4 trenches of loan in the form of rice to the 1st defendant. All the loans except an amount of ¢100,000,000 was given the 1st defendant in the form of rice. The first loan was ¢400,000,000 worth of rice and ¢100,000,000 cash overdraft totaling ¢500,000,000. This amount by plaintiff's pleading has ¢48,069,936.88 still outstanding as at 15th October, 2004. The second loan was ¢500,000,000. As at 15th October, 2004 the outstanding amount on this loan is ¢206,508,580.14. The third, ¢849,445,000 was granted on the 19th March, 2003. As at the 15th October, 2004 the outstanding balance is ¢1,278,147,644.19. The last loan was for the amount of ¢423,200,000. As at 15th October, 2004 the outstanding amount is ¢498,518,466.51. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The defendants denied all these averments of the plaintiff. The substance of their defence on the pleadings is that an amount of ¢1.631 billion has been paid into the Buffer Stock Account to their credit for rice supplies they made to certain state institutions. These payments according to the defendants, plaintiff is aware of but had failed to inform them of these credits. The defendants have two other accusations against the plaintiff. It spent a total amount of ¢984,171,000 in the processing of the rice i.e. milling bagging, haulage but the plaintiff has refused to refund the amount. The second accusation is that the plaintiff misrepresented to them that the recoverable amount of milled rice would be in excess of 70% and it was this which induced the defendant to enter into the business. They found out during operation that the yield was only 57%. They therefore have a counterclaim against the plaintiff asking for the ¢984,171,000 and claiming damages for negligent misstatement amounting to ¢614,080,000. They are asking for interest on these amounts. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">At close of evidence it became clear, from the plaintiff's evidence that the defendant has already paid for the first two loans. Demand they were making of the defendants in this court concern only the last two loans. The question is couldn't the plaintiff have come to court to ask for only these two outstanding loans? Mr. Kwabena Sarpong, Assistant Manager Credit Department of the plaintiff's Head Office was clear in his evidence that it was the total of the last two loans granted the defendants with accrued interest that is the claim against the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The defendant during the trial I will say gave no clear supportive evidence to their counterclaim they have made against the plaintiff in respect of the processing cost of ¢984,171,000 and the ¢614,080.00 claim for negligent misstatement. Probably they thought it wise to abandon these claims. I will dismiss these counterclaims. What I was able to make out of their pleadings is that there is this credit of ¢1,631,506.269 in the buffer account in their favour which the plaintiffs are aware of but have not credited them. One would have thought that if the defendants had limited their defence to this, the court would not have been burdened with what I consider unnecessary and in certain cases unclear evidence the parties put before the court. As I have already stated Mr. Sarpong told the court it is for the last two loans that the defendants are indebted to the bank, the third loan of ¢849,445,000 and the last loan of ¢423,200,000. The last loan of ¢423,200,000 according to Mr. Sarpong, the defendant paid about ¢210.25 million leaving a balance of about ¢213 million. It is this balance when added to the figure ¢849,445,000 that the principal of ¢1,059,705,000 stands to the debit of the defendants. How did the plaintiff prove its claim to the total of these two loans and the interest that had accrued upon them making the figure ¢2,031,244,627.72? Did the plaintiff give these two loans to the defendants? If they did when? Did the defendants pay any of these loans? These are some of the areas the parties will have to lead evidence on. Did the plaintiff give the defendant the loan of ¢849,445,000 19th March, 2003 at an interest rate of 29% for a period of 6 months? The other loan of ¢423,20</main>
