THE SEED FUNDS SAVINGS & LOANS LTD. (PLAINTIFF) vs. SYNSOL & AIG TRADING LIMITED & ANOR. (DEFENDANTS) [2018]DLHC7307

THE SEED FUNDS SAVINGS & LOANS LTD. (PLAINTIFF) vs. SYNSOL & AIG TRADING LIMITED... [2018]DLHC7307

Date	2018-11-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/944/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7307

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

GEORGE BEKAI FOR PLAINTIFF

[2018]DLHC7307
																																						<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" >THE SEED FUNDS SAVINGS &amp; LOANS LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SYNSOL &amp; AIG TRADING LIMITED &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION ‘2’), 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. GJ/944/2018&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 23RD
NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

GEORGE BEKAI FOR PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K.
KOOMSON (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;line-height:115%;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">SUMMARY JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is an
application for Summary Judgement.&nbsp; I
have read the application and the supporting affidavit.&nbsp; Although the Defendant was served with the
motion on the 9th November, 2018, it has failed to file an affidavit
in opposition. It is noted that the Defendants have not filed a Statement of
Defence although they had entered appearance. Thoughtful consideration has been
given to Order 14 rule 1 of CI. 47 which provides that:<o:p></o:p>“Where in an action a Defendant has
been served with a statement of claim and has filed appearance, the Plaintiff
may on notice apply to the Court for judgment against the Defendant on the
ground that the Defendant has no defence to a claim included in the Writ, or to
a particular part of such a claim, or that the Defendant has no defence to such
a claim or part of a claim, except as to the amount of any damages claimed.”<o:p></o:p>A summary of the facts of the case is that the 1st
Defendant requested for a loan facility from the Plaintiff in the sum of GH¢3,870.00. The said loan facility was
approved by the Plaintiff on the 21stDecember, 2016. The loan
facility was guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant who is a Director of
the 1st Defendant Company.&nbsp;
The purpose of the facility was to enable 1st Defendant make
an equity contribution towards the establishment of Letters of Credit by Access
Bank Ghana Limited for the purchase of 50,000 metric tonnes of crude oil from
Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) in Nigeria, and also to cater for
expenses to be incurred in certifying the crude oil by SGS and other
documentation fees when the vessel arrived in Ghana. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The tenor of the loan facility was for One month from
the date of disbursement. The interest rate exigible was 5% flat transaction
tenor up to one month.&nbsp; The parties
agreed further that any additional day after the tenor and up to another month
will attract the same rate.&nbsp; It was further
agreed by the parties that a penal rate of 10% per month shall be chargeable on
an account which is overdrawn or overdue without authorization.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As at the 5th January, 2017, the Plaintiff
had disbursed in favour of the 1st Defendant an amount of GH¢3,111,111.11. The inability of the
Defendants to settle their indebtedness that had an outstanding balance as at
15th February, 2017 caused the Plaintiff to write to the 1st
Defendant on the 15th February, 2017.&nbsp; The 1st Defendant applied to the
Plaintiff for an extension of the tenor of the expiry date of facility for a
further two month.&nbsp; Within the said
letter, the 1st Defendant applied for a further sum of $100,000.00 to enable them cover
initial cost to complete the transaction on the 15th March,
2017.&nbsp; The Plaintiff granted the request
of the 1st Defendant and disbursed the sum of $100,000 in Ghana Cedi equivalence of GH¢430,000.00. Pursuant to this, the total indebtedness of the 1st
Defendant stood at GH¢3,764,887.84
with a maturity date of 17th April, 2017.&nbsp;
The 1st Defendant on 25th September, 2017 paid GH¢1,200,000.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendants’ inability to pay the balance
outstanding caused the Plaintiff&nbsp; to
serve the Defendants with dema</main>