ROYAL BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION vs. DELECTA AHWIRENG & 2 ORS [2018]DLHC16548

Date	2018-04-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C/91/2003
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC16548

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

F. K. YEBOAH FOR PLAINTIFF

JEDRO IMBEAH FOR 1ST DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC16548
																																						<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" >ROYAL BENEFICIARIES
ASSOCIATION <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DELECTA AHWIRENG &amp;
2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, 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;">

SUIT NO. C/91/2003&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:
20TH&nbsp;APRIL 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>F.
K. YEBOAH FOR PLAINTIFF<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>CORAM<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>&nbsp;<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;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Introduction<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is a matter which has stayed in
the court system for far too long and it is because of cases like this that
sometimes people are bold to criticize the judiciary for delays in the delivery
of justice.&nbsp; The writ was issued as far
back as February 2003, about 15 years ago. It must be stated that most of the
delays that occurred can be placed squarely at the doorsteps of the parties and
their counsel.&nbsp; Counsel for the plaintiff
in his address rightly captures the chequered history of this case on page 2 in
the following terms:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“The trial of this case has had a very
checkered history passing through the hands of at least four judges.&nbsp; The plaintiff and its two witnesses gave
evidence as far back as 2005 – between April and June.&nbsp; After that there was a break of about 3 years
…&nbsp; The defendants … opened their defence
in February 2008. After only one sitting the 1st defendant never
appeared in court to continue her evidence until 20th July 2017 – an
interval of over nine years.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;When parties had duly filed their
addresses and it was time for me to fix a date for judgment, it came to my
notice that some of the exhibits were not in the exhibit file.&nbsp; Neither the parties nor their counsel could
help the court with copies of the exhibits as they could also not locate their
copies.&nbsp; I therefore directed the parties
to file affidavits consenting to the delivery of judgment although the said
exhibits could not be found as all the parties were agreed on the contents of
the exhibits.&nbsp; The parties duly filed the
said affidavits but shortly before judgment was given, copies of exhibits 3 and
4 were located on the docket.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Plaintiff’s
Case<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that it is a
welfare association comprised mainly of cloth sellers at Makola market.&nbsp; The plaintiff contracts loans from commercial
banks and gives individual loans to members of the association.&nbsp; This is so because most of their members
could not provide the security the commercial banks required before giving
loans to individuals but as an association, they were able to provide the
requisite securities to the banks so that their members could assess loans from
the banks to boost their working capital.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that they
sign an agreement with each member with respect to the amount each of them
required. Such agreements are always guaranteed by two members of the
association.&nbsp; When the agreement is
signed with a member, the plaintiff will issue cheques to each member and
introduce them to the bank.&nbsp; The bank
will then release the amount involved to the member concerned either by a
cheque, banker’s draft or by cash after the beneficiary has signed a form at
the bank.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that 1st
defendant applied for and was given a loan of ₵