H.F.C. BANK GHANA LTD. vs P-MAG INVESTMENT & MONEY LENDING SERVICES LTD. & 3 ORS. [2022]DLCA16056

H.F.C. BANK GHANA LTD. vs P-MAG INVESTMENT & MONEY LENDING SERVICES LTD. & 3 ORS... [2022]DLCA16056

Date	2022-06-01
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEA NO: H1/17/2022
Citation No.	[2022]DLCA16056

SOWAH J. A. (PRESIDING)

OPPONG J. A.

MENSAH-HOMIAH J. A.

EGYA KOJO BOTWE ESQ.

K. OWUSU POKU ESQ.

[2022]DLCA16056
																																						<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" >&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; H.F.C. BANK GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>P-MAG
INVESTMENT &amp; MONEY LENDING SERVICES LTD. &amp; 3 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

CIVIL APPEA NO: H1/17/2022&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: 1ST JUNE 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>SOWAH
J. A. (PRESIDING), OPPONG J. A., MENSAH-HOMIAH J. A.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MENSAH-HOMIAH, JA<o:p></o:p>The High Court, Koforidua in a very terse ruling dated 19th
October 2020, stayed proceedings in the instant action against all four
defendants, pursuant to the Banks &amp; Specialised Deposit Taking
Institutions Act 2016 (Act 930). We
have been called upon to determine among other things, whether or not 1st
Defendant Company falls within the entities regulated under Act 930, and
whether the ruling is justified in law. <o:p></o:p>In this appeal against the High Court ruling, Plaintiff/Appellant
and Defendants/ Respondents would be simply referred to as Plaintiff and
Defendants, respectively. <o:p></o:p>A brief background to the case would be useful. On 24th
September 2014, Plaintiff company granted an overdraft facility of One Million
Ghana Cedis (GHS 1,000,000.00) and a revolving Line of Credit of Two Million
Ghana Cedis (GHS 2,000,000.00) to 1st Defendant company on agreed
terms. It is said that, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
defendants mortgaged their properties as security for repayment of these credit
facilities. When 1st Defendant defaulted on the facilities,
Plaintiff sued Defendants jointly and severally for repayment of the outstanding
amount of Three Million Eight Hundred and Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Six
Ghana Cedis and Twenty-five Pesewas (GHS3,877,796.25); or in the alternative,
judicial sale of the mortgaged properties.<o:p></o:p>Pursuant to an order of the trial court, the parties filed their
respective witness statements and case management conference (CMC) commenced.
While the CMC was ongoing, Counsel for Defendants filed a “motion on notice for
an order of the court staying proceedings”. The gravamen of the application
was that, the Bank of Ghana (BoG) had withdrawn the license of 1st
Defendant company and had placed it under Receivership. Counsel for Plaintiff
strenuously opposed the application and argued that civil proceedings would be
stayed against a defendant company only when the Receiver takes over the
company together with its assets and liabilities. In her concise ruling dated 15th
October, 2020, the trial judge delivered herself thus:<o:p></o:p>“I have taken
judicial notice of the fact that the 1st Defendant is under
receivership and per the provisions of Act 930, I am unable to continue with
this instant suit.<o:p></o:p>Accordingly, proceedings in this case (sic) is
adjourned sine die.”<o:p></o:p>Aggrieved by this ruling, Plaintiff caused a notice of appeal to
be filed on 5th November 2020 against the entire ruling, on the
following grounds:<o:p></o:p>a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned Trial
Judge erred in law and caused a substantial miscarriage of justice when she
stayed proceedings against all the Defendants although the Plaintiff had a
distinct contract with 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Defendants.<o:p></o:p>