UNION SAVINGS & LOANS LTD vs. RASCO INVESTMENT LTD AND ABASS ABUBAKAR [2017]DLHC4124

Date	2017-02-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS 264/2015
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4124

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

JUDY EDUSEI (MRS) FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2017]DLHC4124
																																						<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" >UNION SAVINGS &amp;
LOANS LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RASCO INVESTMENT LTD AND ABASS ABUBAKAR <o:p></o:p>[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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. BFS 264/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 28TH
FEBRUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
is a debt recovery action in which the Plaintiff seeks to recover an amount of GHC36,440.00
being the amount outstanding on the loan facility granted to the 1st
Defendant and interest rate of 4.5% a month to the date of final payment. The
Plaintiff is also claiming a penalty rate of 0.5% a day from 21st
May 2015 till date of final payment. In the alternative, the Plaintiff is
praying for the judicial sale of Toyota Corolla, Fiat Astra and VW Jetta with
registration numbers AW 7899-12, WR 1189 - N and AW 92 - 12 respectively being
the properties used by the 1stDefendant to secure the payment of the
said loan facility.<o:p></o:p>Details
of the grant of the loan facility and the events leading to the default are
adequately captured in the Plaintiff’s statement of claim filed on the 4th
of June, 2015.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants caused their solicitor to enter conditional appearance on their
behalf on 16/06/2015. They filed a defence on 23/ 07/2015. This was after the
Plaintiff had taken steps to secure judgment in default of defence.<o:p></o:p>After
unsuccessful attempts at settlement, two issues were set down for trial namely:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" 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;">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the
Defendants are indebted to the Plaintiffs to the tune of GHC36,440.00; and<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" 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;">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the
Plaintiff is entitled to its claim against the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>After
the Pre-trial stage, the court gave orders as to the filing of witness statements
on 28/10/2016. The Plaintiff complied with the order of the court but the
defendants failed to do so. The defendants could not be served with the order
and the hearing notice to come to court. The court subsequently extended the
time for the Defendants to file their witness statements but they could not be
traced for personal service after successive adjournments. On 23/01/2017 the
court granted an application for substituted service of the hearing notice and
the court notes. After posting copies of the processes at locations prescribed
in the order of substituted service, the Defendants still failed to file their
witness statements, as ordered by the court.<o:p></o:p>At
the case management stage, the defence filed by the defendants was struck out
under Order 32 rule 7A (3) (b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules, 2004)
CI 47 as amended by the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules 2014) CI 87. The
Plaintiff was thereafter invited to prove its claim against the Defendants. <o:p></o:p>At
the trial, the loan Recovery Officer of the Plaintiff company, Frank Sekyere
testified on her behalf. He relied on the witness statement he gave to the
Plaintiff Counsel and filed on the 22/11/2016. He also relied on the exhibits
attached to the witness statement.<o:p></o:p>I
shall proceed to discuss the issues to ascertain whether the Plaintiff has led
cogent evidence to establish her claim. In doing so, I shall tackle the two
issues together since they are intrinsically linked. Indeed the credit facility
letter (Exhibit A) and all the exhibits tendered by the Plaintiff’s
representative seek to give effect to the averments contained in the
Plaintiff’s</main>