S.G. GHANA LIMITED (PLAINTIFF) vs. FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH INT. SCH. LTD. AND PATIENCE NANASI SENCHEREY (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7143

S.G. GHANA LIMITED (PLAINTIFF) vs. FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH INT. SCH. LTD. AND PATIENCE... [2019]DLHC7143

Date	2019-06-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CM/0343/16
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7143

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J

BANNERMAN WILLIAMS ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF.

ELIKPLIM L. AGBEMAVA ESQ. FOR DEFENDANTS

[2019]DLHC7143
																																						<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" >S.G. GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH INT.
SCH. LTD. AND PATIENCE NANASI SENCHEREY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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: CM/0343/16&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: 26TH
JUNE, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>BANNERMAN WILLIAMS ESQ.,
FOR PLAINTIFF.<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">

ELIKPLIM
L. AGBEMAVA ESQ., FOR DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, 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;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>By
a writ of civil summons issued on the 11th day of May 2016, the
plaintiff claims against the defendants: <o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Recovery of the
sum of GH¢1,366,527.00 (One Million Three Hundred and Sixty –six Thousand Five
Hundred and Twenty-seven Ghana Cedis) from the Defendants jointly and
severally.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Interest on the said
sum of GH¢1,366,527.00 (one Million Three Hundred and Sixty-six Thousand Five
Hundred and Twenty-seven Ghana Cedis) at the rate of 6% per annum above the
prevailing bank rate from 29th February, 2016 till date of final payment
against the Defendant jointly and severally.<o:p></o:p>After
the inability of the parties to settle the matter at pre-trial, issues were set
down and the matter referred to trial at which the plaintiff gave evidence per
the witness statement filed by its representative. The defendants also gave
evidence and called a witness to testify on their behalf per witness statements
filed by them.<o:p></o:p>A
brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, a financial institution, made
available to the 1st defendant, various financial facilities on
terms set out in contracts between the parties. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants have reneged on their obligations to repay the facilities given to
the 1st defendant and that the 2nd defendant, who also
provided security by way of a mortgage and a personal guarantee, had also
failed to repay the loan when she was called upon to do so. The plaintiff
therefore issued the instant writ seeking to recover the debt owed. The
defendants say that the plaintiff agreed to allow the 1st defendant
to liquidate the debt by installment as a result, the institution of the
instant suit, according to the defendant, is thus, pre-matured. The defendants
also take issue with the amount being claimed by the plaintiff including the
claim for penal interest.<o:p></o:p>The
first issue set down for trial is whether or not the 1st defendant’s
debt to the plaintiff stood at GH₵1, 366,527.00 on the 29th February 2016.
There is evidence on record that in July 2011 a loan of GH₵51,902.62 was granted to the 1st
defendant. The court finds also that in October 2012, the 1st
defendant applied for and was granted another facility in the sum of GH₵732,993.00. Further to the above, the 1st
defendant applied for and was given another term loan of GH₵250,000.00 in July 2014. Exhibits A, B and C
tendered by the plaintiff are the agreements executed by the parties in respect
of the facilities granted to the 1st defendant and they duly support
the loans agreed between the parties in favour of the 1st defendant.
<o:p></o:p>In
her witness statement filed on the 27th October 2017, the 2nd
defendant, who described herself as the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st
defendant, admitted to these facilities in paragraphs 5, 7 and 11. Moreover,
the 2nd defendant has, in her witness statement admitted the
disbursement of the above sums to the 1st defendant. The court has
therefore no reason to reject the contention by the plaintiff that the above
sums of money were granted t</main>