|
JUDGMENT
1. This suit came before
me for trial on 17/3/2011 the
Plaintiff was present in court
while the Defendant was absent.
Both parties were however
represented by counsel. I
proceeded to take evidence from
the Plaintiff’s witness who
testified on the relationship
between the Plaintiff and
Defendant relative to the deed
of legal mortgage executed
between the Plaintiff and
Defendant dated 1/4/2003.
2. The Plaintiff’s
allegation per its pleadings
supported by the evidence of the
Plaintiff’s witness is that,
Plaintiff has defaulted in the
payments envisaged under the
agreement and therefore
Plaintiff be ordered as entitled
to recovery of the sum of
U$16,859.65 as endorsed on the
writ.
3. In proof of its case
against the Defendant, Plaintiff
tendered Exhibit ‘A’ the
facility letter which referred
to Plaintiff the mortgagee on
the terms set out in Exhibit ‘A’
and Exhibit ‘B’ which refers to
Defendant’s acceptance of the
offer by letter dated February
10, 2003 as well as the deed of
legal mortgage between Plaintiff
and Defendant dated 1/4/2002
which refers to the Home
Mortgage Finance Law 1993 (PNDCL
329) and the Mortgage Decree
1972 as the governing laws
including any amendments or re –
enactments thereto
4. Exhibits ‘D1’, ‘E’
and ‘F’ tendered by the
Plaintiff represented
documentary proof of reminders
made to Defendant by the
Plaintiff on her default in
paying the installments on the
deed of mortgage and a threat
contained in Exhibit ‘F’ that
Plaintiff intends to exercise
its right in accordance with the
Home Mortgage Finance Act 2008
(Act 770) comprehended by clause
10 of the deed of legal mortgage
Exhibit ‘C’.
5. In Exhibit ‘G’ the
uncontroverted documentary proof
of the status of the Defendant’s
indebtedness is that as of
1/3/2011 Defendant is indebted
to the Plaintiff in the sum of
U$16,831.79 representing the
balance on the mortgage account
only.
6. At the close of the
Plaintiff’s evidence, counsel
for the Defendant who commenced
cross examination applied for an
adjournment to enable him
receive further instructions
from the Defendant. When the
suit was called on 18/3/2011 the
Defendant was represented when
her counsel announced that he
has instructions to submit to
judgment and would consequently
not continue with cross
examination of the Plaintiff’s
witness.
7. In view of the fact
that the Defendant has filed a
defence to the action and the
Plaintiff had at that stage
closed its case, I decided,
notwithstanding the Defendant’s
counsel’s decision to submit to
judgment, to subject the
Defendant’s pleading to scrutiny
with the view to determining
whether or not the defence
raises any legal or
jurisdictional issue on the face
of the pleadings. I found none
as the Defendant’s pleading only
puts the Plaintiff to strict
proof of the averments in its
statement of claim.
8. After evaluating
Plaintiff’s evidence in
accordance with the prescribed
statutory standard provided by
sections 11,12, 14 and other
provisions of the Evidence Act
(NRCD 323) 1975, I have come to
the conclusion that the
Plaintiff proved its case on the
balance of the probabilities and
that Defendant’s concession
means that, the case of the
Plaintiff is unanswerable, same
not having been challenged,
controverted or contradicted by
the Defendant during cross
examination by her counsel.
9. In the result, I find
for the Plaintiff and hereby
enter judgment for the recovery
from the Defendant the sum of
U$16,859.65 with interest
thereon at the prevailing bank
interest rate on the United
States Dollar from February 2010
until date of final payment.
10. Alternatively,
Plaintiff is at liberty to
conduct a judicial sale of the
mortgaged property the 3 bedroom
semi detached house at Plot No.
A14 Manet Palms Ogbojo in the
Greater Accra Region Ghana.
Let there be costs
of GH¢1,000.00 in favour of the
Plaintiff.
(SGD.)
JUSTICE I. O. TANKO AMADU
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
|
