ABEIKU & CO. LTD. (PLAINTIFF) vs. BREMU LIMITED AND NANA KWAME ANIME III (DEFENDANTS) [2010]DLHC7071

ABEIKU & CO. LTD. (PLAINTIFF) vs. BREMU LIMITED AND NANA KWAME ANIME III (DEFEND... [2010]DLHC7071

Date	2010-08-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E12/25/07
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC7071

HIS LORDSHIP R. B. BATU J.

[2010]DLHC7071
																																						<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" >ABEIKU &amp; CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<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>BREMU LIMITED AND NANA KWAME ANIME III<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"><o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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">

<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">SUIT
NO. E12/25/07&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 AUGUST, 2010<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 1.0pt 0in">

HIS LORDSHIP R. B. BATU J.<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>By an amended Writ and
Statement of Claim filed on 10th March, 2009, the Plaintiff claimed from the
Defendants:— <o:p></o:p>"a) Recovery of an amount of
GH¢36,650.00 being loan facilities granted by the Plaintiff to the Defendants
upon request between 2nd July, 2005 and 2nd May, 2006. <o:p></o:p>b) Recovery of interest on the various
amounts at the agreed monthly rates of 20%. <o:p></o:p>c) Recovery of mesne profit/exigible
interest payable till date of final payment. <o:p></o:p>d) Recovery of the cost of 100 bags of
cement used in construction works which were purchased on the credit of the
Defendants and guaranteed by the Plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>e) Damages for breach of contract. <o:p></o:p>f) Any other relief (s) in the
circumstances”. <o:p></o:p>After fruitless efforts to
have the Defendants served personally, the defendants were served by
substituted service. It took a further arrest of the second defendant on
absconding warrant to get the defendants to enter appearance and file a
defence. <o:p></o:p>In paragraph 3 of the
Statement of Defence filed on 19th April, 2007, the Defendants admitted receipt
of the ¢50 million then claimed. In the amended statement of claim filed on
10th March, 2009, the reliefs sought against the Defendant were modified by
deletion of the reliefs in respect of construction of a Ministry of Health
Polyclinic at Shama and by the addition of other reliefs in respect of
financial assistance. The main issue for the determination of the suit then
becomes whether or not the Defendants did receive the financial assistance
alleged. <o:p></o:p>The amended processes were
duly served on layers for the defendants on 10th March, 2010. Until 7th June,
2010 when Lawyers for Defendants withdrew from the case, no defence had been
filed to the amended writ of summons. After further service of Hearing Notices
on Defendants by substitution, the Plaintiff was heard. <o:p></o:p>Represented by its
Managing Director, Carlos Abeiku Amoah the plaintiff presented its case thus:— <o:p></o:p>It is a financial
institution in the business of providing financial services. Beginning from
July, 2005, it provided financial assistance on various occasions to the
Defendants at their request for the execution of a Ministry of Health contract
it had obtained at Shama. These contracts were in writing. The plaintiff put in
evidence the agreements as Exhibit 'A' to 12th. It further took ¢20 million and
¢30 million from another company Manuelton Financial and Trading Company on
behalf of Second defendant which it guaranteed. <o:p></o:p>After further efforts to
locate Defendants, It went to the project site at Shama where it learnt that
defendant was impecunious and could not complete the project even though it had
been overpaid for the work it had so far done to the lintel level. By a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Exhibit 'B' of 20th December, 2008, they had
agreed that Plaintiff finance the project. When the project stalled on account
of defendants impecuniosity it, in Exhibit 'D5 submit the project to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff bought 100 bags of cement for that purpose. <o:p></o:p>In view of the amendment
to the writ and statement of claim, the further evidence on financial
obligations of the defendants to the Plaintiff arising out of that subletting
will not be considered since it does not help to resolve the main issue left. <o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff’s evidence
is amply supported by documentation which shows that defendant took various
amounts from the plaintiff at a monthly interest rate of 20%. Defendant has not
been heard on the issue not for lack of knowledge of the pendency of the suit
but for deliberately disabling themselves by refusing to come to Court to
contest the cas</main>