PATHWAY MICRO FINANCE vs. CYNTHIA OKYERE & ANOR [2018]DLHC9320

Date	2018-05-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC 34/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9320

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

ISAAC KANKAM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

LESLEY SENYO AMEDIOR FOR AKWASI ARHIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2018]DLHC9320
																																						<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" >PATHWAY
MICRO FINANCE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CYNTHIA
OKYERE &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ISAAC KANKAM FOR THE PLAINTIFF <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">LESLEY
SENYO AMEDIOR FOR AKWASI ARHIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;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;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>The
plaintiff by his Writ of Summons filed on 25th July, 2017 claim
against the defendants jointly and severallyas follows:<o:p></o:p>a.A
repayment of an amount of GHC52,663,000.00 (Fifty-two thousand six hundred and sixty-three
Ghana Cedis) being the total debt owed (principal, interest plus penalty) by
the 1st defendant as at May 2016.<o:p></o:p>b.Interest
on the sum from May 2016 till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>c.Cost
inclusive of solicitor’s fee.<o:p></o:p>Upon
service of the writ on the defendants, the 1st defendant filed a
defence to the claim on 11th October, 2016.<o:p></o:p>After
an unsuccessful attempt at settlement, the following issues were set down for
trial by the court:<o:p></o:p>a.Whether
or not the plaintiff advanced an amount of GHC40,000.00 to the 1st defendant at
a concessionary rate of 5.5% per annum or 6.6% per annum.<o:p></o:p>b.Whether
or not there was a mutual mistake with regards to the interest rate applicable.<o:p></o:p>c.Whether
or not the loan transaction is unconscionable<o:p></o:p>d.Whether
or not the 1st defendant is liable to pay the amount as endorsed on the writ of
summons or any part thereof.<o:p></o:p>e.Whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to its claim against the 1st defendant.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff’s Case<o:p></o:p>It
is the case of the plaintiff that in May 2016 it advanced a loan facility of
GHC40,000.00 (Forty Thousand Ghana Cedis) to the 1st defendant for
the purpose of trading as indicated in the Customer Loan application form
(Exhibit A). The 1st defendant used House No. 85 Kromosi Kwanwoma (Exhibit B)
as collateral for the facility. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st
defendant made some repayments but started defaulting somewhere along the line.
The plaintiff posits that the defendant is under an obligation to pay the
principal plus the interest and penalty that has accrued from the date of the
grant till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>The Defendants’ Case<o:p></o:p>The
1st defendant submitted a witness statement on behalf of the 2nd
defendant and on her own behalf. It is the case of the 1st defendant
that she is an illiterate and that the plaintiff never took time to explain the
terms of the loan facility to her before she signed up. She also claims that
she was not made aware of the huge and unconscionable nature of the interest
rate of 66 percent. According to the 1st defendant she committed
herself to pay the loan facility faithfully under the impression that the
interest rate was 5.5 percent. It is also her case that she was made to believe
that the insurance covering the facility covered unforeseen circumstance like
illness and that since she suffered from a total abdominal hysterectomy which
was an unforeseen illness she is qualified to benefit from the insurance cover
relating to the remainder of the amount due as well as the interest thereon.<o:p></o:p>The Burden of Proof in Civil Suits
Generally<o:p></o:p>As
in all civil suits, the legal burden of proof is placed on the party who
asserts the existence of a fact in issue or any relevant fact. Depending on the
admissions made, the party on whom the burden of proof lies is enjoined by the
provisions of sections 10, 11(4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD
323) to lead cogent evidence such that on the totality of the evidence on
record, the court will find that party's version in relation to the rival
accounts to be more probable than its non-existence.<o:p></o:p>