BANK OF AFRICA vs. FESTUS ASARE YEBOAH [2018]DLHC9311

Date	2018-06-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS 47/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9311

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

MICHAEL KWABENA ATTA AGYEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2018]DLHC9311
																																						<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>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FESTUS
ASARE YEBOAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MICHAEL
KWABENA ATTA AGYEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:center 234.0pt;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>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 one cedis 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 negligence in not reading a document
before signing could not amount to the defence of non-est factum.’’<o:p></o:p>While the court
readily enforces agreed interest rates, it takes ambivalent approach when it
comes to penal interests or penalty clauses.<o:p></o:p>In Bank of Africa v
</main>