SG-SSB LIMITED vs. AMOS ALUMINIUM LINK CO. LTD, MR. AMOS IGWE AND MRS RITA IGWE [2016]DLHC6293

Date	2016-05-05
Suit No.	BFS/305/13
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC6293

JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS)

YAW ESHUN FOR PLAINTIFF

EDDIE YAO HARVEY FOR DEFENDANTS

[2016]DLHC6293
																																						<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" >SG-SSB LIMITED<o:p></o:p>{PLAINTIFF}<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AMOS ALUMINIUM LINK CO.
LTD, MR. AMOS IGWE AND MRS RITA IGWE<o:p></o:p>{DEFENDANTS}<o:p></o:p><h1 align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%">[HIGH
COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></h1><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>YAW
ESHUN FOR PLAINTIFF<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">

EDDIE
YAO HARVEY FOR DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
29th January 2014, the Plaintiff filed an amended writ of summons and
statement of claim in which it claimed against the Defendants, the following
reliefs:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">Defendants
 pay the Plaintiff the amount of GH¢46,727.82 being outstanding balance on
 the overdraft facility granted to the Defendants<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">Interest
 on the said amount from 31st July 2013 to date of final payment
 at the prevailing bank rate<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">Costs
 occasioned by this action.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">A
 perpetual injunction preventing the Defendants either by themselves,
 privies or agents from letting out the property used in securing the loan
 facility to any 3rd party without the leave of the Honourable
 Court.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
was the Plaintiff’s case as set out in its Statement of Claim that on or about
8th November 2010 and at the 1st Defendant’s request, the
Plaintiff approved an overdraft facility of GH¢25,000.00 which attracted an interest
rate of 32.50 % per annum.&nbsp; It was
further agreed between the parties that in case of default, any sum unpaid
would attract a penal interest rate of 6% per annum above the indicated
interest rate.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff
also averred that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants provided
security in the form of a legal mortgage over property situate at Ablekuma.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Defendants in their Amended Defence and Counterclaim filed on 12th March 2015
admitted receiving a banking facility from the Plaintiff.&nbsp; They however contended that the performance
of the terms and conditions of the contract was frustrated by an act of God
which was a torrential downpour of rain which caused flooding and led to the
destruction of their stock in trade.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As
a result, they said they brought their predicament to the Plaintiff’s
notice.&nbsp; Not only did the Plaintiff
ignore this state of affairs but continued to charge interest on the
facility.&nbsp; They therefore put forth the
following counterclaim:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration that the contract between the
parties had been frustrated by an act of God being the supervening act for
which reason there was no need for the Plaintiff Bank to be surcharging the
Defendants further interest on the facility which they very well knew had been
caught by a supervening act.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A further declaration that what the
Defendants owe the Plaintiff was the principal sum plus the interest that
accrued at the time of the occurrence of the supervening act and no more so as
the contract between the parties had been frustrated by an act of God being the
supervening act.<o:p></o:p>