UT BANK vs. RICHARD OWUSU ANSAH [2010]DLHC3905

Date	2010-05-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BFS/101/10
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC3905

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

PAPA YAW OWUSU ANKOMAH FOR PAAPA DADSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

[2010]DLHC3905
																																						<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" >UT BANK<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RICHARD OWUSU ANSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), KUMASI]<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">

SUIT NO.BFS/101/10&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;DATE: 30TH MAY, 2010<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 1.0pt 0in">

</div>CORAM:<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">

ANGELINA
MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>In
this suit, the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants the sum of GH¢77,683.45 being the
outstanding balance of a credit facility advanced to the 1st Defendant
together with interest. &nbsp;The 2nd
Defendant has been sued as a Surety/ Mortgagor. As a result, the Plaintiff has
also sought for an order of judicial sale of the Mortgaged property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When
the case was slated for hearing, the Defendants on various occasions pleaded
for time for an out of court settlement. In accordance with section 72 of the
Courts Act, 1993, Act 459, the court graciously allowed the parties to do so.
Subsequent to this, adjournments were sought for and granted, all in the name
of mediation, but to no avail. On 23/02/2012, the Court had no other option
than to commence the trial. Both Defendants had notice of the trial but
absented themselves. The court allowed the Plaintiff to prove its claim under
Order 36 rule 2 of C.I 47. <o:p></o:p>The
issues for trial as set down by the pre-trial judge were as follows:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether or not the 1st
 Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum claimed on the writ of
 summons which is GHC 77,683.45?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether or not the Plaintiff is
 entitled to 8% compound interest on GH¢77,683.45 from the date of the writ to
 date of judgment?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether or not the seizure of 1st
 Defendant’s V.W. Golf vehicle with registration number GC 3166 Z by the
 Plaintiff was in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the
 Plaintiff and 1st Defendant?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether or not Plaintiff locked 1st
 Defendant’s shop on 1st October 2009?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether or not the 1st
 Defendant is entitled to damages.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A
project Analyst of the Plaintiff Bank gave evidence on its behalf to prove the
averments contained in their pleadings.&nbsp;
He tendered in evidence the Loan Agreement executed between the
Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant as exhibit A. This document
contained the terms of the Loan agreement. The document underscoring the
security charged on this transaction was also tendered as exhibit B.&nbsp; The deed of assignment evidencing the
assignment of the 1st Defendant’s vehicle with registration number
GC 3166 Z to the plaintiff was tendered as exhibit C.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiff’s representative explained that by exhibit C, the 1st
Defendant created an exclusive fixed charge in favour of the Plaintiff and the
1st Defendant transferred ownership to the sole name of the
Plaintiff.&nbsp;&nbsp; Referring to the provisions
in clause 4.1 and 5.1 of exhibit C, the Plaintiff’s representative said the
parties agreed that the charge over the property will become immediately
enforceable upon the 1st Defendant’s default in repaying the Loan
upon the agreed terms. It was further agreed that the Plaintiff could sell the
vehicle to defray the 1st defendant’s indebtedness upon default.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Continuing,
he testified that the 1st Defendant defau</main>