BANK OF AFRICA vs. FESTUS ASARE YEBOAH [2018]DLHC3970

Date	2018-06-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS 47/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3970

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

MICHAEL KWABENA ATTA AGYEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2018]DLHC3970
																																						<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" >BANK OF AFRICA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FESTUS ASARE YEBOAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. BFS 47/2017&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:
19TH
JUNE, 2018<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">

</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:.1in">

</div><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:.1in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;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>By
a writ of summons, plaintiff claim against the defendant the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a.
A declaration that the Defendant’s failure, neglect and or refusal to honour
the repayment terms on the facility granted him constitutes a breach of the
financial facility agreement\contract between the Defendant and Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>b.
An order for the recovery of the outstanding sum of Seventy-Three thousand
eight hundred and eighty onecedis and sixty two pesewas (GHC 73,881.62)
together with the various agreed interest(s) and penalties to be assessed on
any outstanding sum unpaid per each month of default till date of final
payment.<o:p></o:p>c.
Further interest and penal charges, if any, as agreed by the parties from the
date of default till the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>d.
General damages for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>e.
Cost (including legal fees).<o:p></o:p>f.
Any other reliefs deemed appropriate by the Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p>On
14th June, 2017 the court entered interlocutory judgment in favour
of the Plaintiff for recovery of the principal sum of <a name="_Hlk517123227">GHC73,881.62</a>.
The suit was, however, adjourned for assessment of damages and the interests on
the principal sum.<o:p></o:p>The
law is that general damages lie for every infringement of an absolute right.
The Supreme Court held in the case of Delmas Agency Ghana Ltd v Food
Distributors International Ltd [2007/2008] SCGLR 748, 760 thus:<o:p></o:p>‘‘General
damages is such as the law will presume to be the probable or natural
consequences of the defendant’s act. It arises by inference of law and
therefore need not be proved by evidence. The law implies general damages in
every infringement of an absolute right. The catch is that only general damages
are awarded.<o:p></o:p>Where
a plaintiff has suffered a properly quantifiable loss, he must plead
specifically his loss and prove it strictly. If he does not he is not entitled
to anything unless general damages are also appropriate.’’<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff’s representative led evidence of specific damages in support of the
general damages sought. He led evidence to show the expenditure incurred in the
prosecution of this case. He tendered exhibit E, the service invoice of the
legal fees charged by plaintiff’s solicitors and exhibit F series, receipts
evidencing court charges paid in the prosecution of this case. The sum total of
the court charges amounted to GHC2,910.00 and the legal service feewas
GHC9,388.10.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff representative also tendered in evidence the overdraft facility
agreement which was marked Exhibit A. This became necessary as both the writ of
summons and statement of claim failed to disclose the various interests payable
under the agreement. From Exhibit A, the loan was offered at an interest rate
of 32.15% per annum subject to variations in line with market trends and a
penal interest of 6% per annum.<o:p></o:p>The
courts generally respect the agreements voluntarily entered into by men of full
age and understanding and is always willing to enforce these agreements
provided they are compatible with public policy. In Oppong vs. Anarfi (2011)
SCGLR 556 the Supreme Court recognized this basic principle when it held:<o:p></o:p>“The
law was settled that a party of full age and understanding would normally be
bound by his signature whether he read and understood it or not, particularly
in the absence of the requisite evidence that the other party had misled him.
Therefore where parties had embodied the terms of their contract in a written
document, extrinsic evidence or oral evidence would be inadmissible to add to,
vary, subtract from or contradict the terms of the written instrument. Thus
mere neglig</main>