AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD (PLAINTIFF) vs. DWADIFO ADANFO MICROFINANCE CO. LTD AND 4 ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2017]DLHC7355

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD (PLAINTIFF) vs. DWADIFO ADANFO MICROFINANCE CO... [2017]DLHC7355

Date	2017-06-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: CM/0172/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC7355

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

MR. NUCHE NWOSU WITH HIM NICHOLAS BARTELS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2017]DLHC7355
																																						<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" >AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DWADIFO ADANFO
MICROFINANCE CO. LTD AND 4 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<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.: CM/0172/2016&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:
2ND JUNE, 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">

MR. NUCHE NWOSU WITH HIM, NICHOLAS BARTELS FOR
THE PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, J.<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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>By
a writ of summons, the plaintiff claims against the defendant jointly and
severally: <o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Recovery of
the sum of GH¢11,835,612.28 (Eleven Million Eight Hundred and Thirty Five
Thousand, Six Hundred and Twelve Ghana Cedis and Twenty Eight Pesewas) being
the outstanding debt on the Overdraft and Term Loan 1 facility granted the 1st
Defendant and secured by 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th
Defendants.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the above sum at the commercial lending
rate from July 2015 until date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Costs inclusive of solicitor’s legal fees.<o:p></o:p>After
the entry of appearance to the writ and the filing of a statement of defence
and a reply thereto, the matter was referred to pre-trial settlement. The case
was eventually set down for hearing when pre-trial settlement failed.<o:p></o:p>On
the 21st February 2017, the court made an order for the parties to
file their witness statements and appear in court on the 31st March
2017 for pre-trial case management conference. This order was served on the
defendants through their solicitor on the 23rd March 2017. The
plaintiff filed its witness statement on the 21st March 2017 and it
was served on the defendants through their solicitor who confirmed service
before the court on the 31st March 2017.&nbsp; The matter was adjourned to 28th
April 2017 to enable the defendants also file their witness statements.
However, when the defendants and their solicitor failed to show-up in court on
the 28th April 2017, the court adjourned the matter once again to
the 19th of May 2017 to afford the defendants yet another
opportunity to file their witness statement. Hearing notice was again served on
the solicitor for the defendants on the 10th May 2017. <o:p></o:p>However,
when the defendants and their solicitor again failed to attend court on the 19th
May 2017, the defence filed on behalf of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd
and 4th defendants was struck out in accordance with rule 7A sub
rule 3 (b) of Order 32 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules,
2014 which provides that:<o:p></o:p>“Where a
party has failed to comply with any of the directions given at a case
management conference or a pretrial review or both, the Judge may make any of
the following others:<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp; strike out the defence and counterclaim as
the case may be, if the non complying party is a defendant.”<o:p></o:p>Thereafter,
the case was adjourned to 30th May 2017 for the plaintiff to prove
its claims against the defendants who were served with yet another hearing
notice on the 29th May 2017 to enable them come to court. When the
case was called on the 30th May 2017, the defendants and their
solicitor were absent. The court invited the plaintiff to give evidence which
its representative did and then announced the closure of the plaintiff’s case.<o:p></o:p>From
the evidence on record, the court finds that the 1st defendant is a
customer of the plaintiff which is a bank. The court also finds that the 2nd
defendant is a chairman of the 1st defendant and also a guarantor of
the facility extended to the 1st defendant. Again, it is on record
that the 3rd and 4th defendants are the chief executi</main>