BSIC (GH) LIMITED vs. ZEBRA INVESTMENT GROUP LTD, IDDRISU ABDULAI AND ZEBRA FC LIMITED [2018]DLHC10092

BSIC (GH) LIMITED vs. ZEBRA INVESTMENT GROUP LTD, IDDRISU ABDULAI AND ZEBRA FC... [2018]DLHC10092

Date	2018-10-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/0211/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10092

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

MS. NANCY ADADE

WITH MR. REINDOLPH TWUMASI ANKRAH FOR

PLAINTIFF (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF ABDUL AZIZ BASSIT) MR. ISAAC AIDOO FOR DEFENDANTS

[2018]DLHC10092
																																						<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" >BSIC (GH) LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ZEBRA INVESTMENT GROUP LTD, IDDRISU
ABDULAI AND ZEBRA FC LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIV. 5) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MS. NANCY ADADE,
WITH MR. REINDOLPH TWUMASI ANKRAH FOR PLAINTIFF (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF ABDUL
AZIZ BASSIT)<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MR.
ISAAC AIDOO FOR DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GEORGE
BUADI J.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;1.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Background<o:p></o:p>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The law implicated in this suit involves
largely first, the nature and importance of pleadings in civil proceedings;
second, the courts’ attitude to ambivalent and prevaricated pleadings; and
third, the burden if any that the law places on a defendant in civil
proceedings; and fourth, the burden if any on parties to provide proof of fact
admitted or impliedly admitted in pleadings. Order 11 Rule 13<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/BSIC%20v%20Zebra%20Inv%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>; Hammond
v Odoi &amp; Anor [1982-83]
GLR 1215, SC; Dam v Addo [1962] 2 GLR 200, SC. <o:p></o:p>The decision also
addresses the issue of capacity of the court on its own during cross
examination to raise legal issues that
had been implicated during and at the cross examination, and then whether the
court can make award for damages when the victorious party did not ask for the
relief in the writ of summons and statement of claim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The plaintiff, the 1st defendant,
and the 3rd defendants are all local corporate entities. Plaintiff
provides banking services. 1st defendant is in the export, import and
supply and sale of general goods including building materials, and that 2nd
defendant is its managing director. 3rd defendant is alleged to have
used its residential property as additional security for repayment of facilities
that plaintiff claims to have granted to 1st defendant upon provision
of assurances and securities by 2nd and 3rd defendants
for repayment of the facilities. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Upon claims of failure to liquidate the facilities
despite claims of demand notices and reminders, plaintiff by writ of summons on
11 March 2016 commenced this action against defendants. The writ and the statement
of claim were on 16 May 2018 amended pursuant to leave of the court for the
following reliefs against the defendants:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of the sum of GH¢2,525,116.42 being as of 31st
day of October, 2015 the total indebtedness in respect of the said credit
facility granted by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant.<o:p></o:p>b&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of the agreed interest of 34% per annum on the
amount in (a) from the 31st day of October, 2015 to the date of
final payment.<o:p></o:p>c&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of the agreed penal rate of 12% on the facility
amount above the agreed interest rate on (a) above from the 31st day
of October, 2015 to the final date of payment.<o:p></o:p>