KLAYE VRS QUICK CREDIT & INVESTMENT MICRO CREDIT LTD AND ANOTHER (A11/01/2023) [2023] GHADC 1175 (5 June 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT AKATSI IN THE VOLTA REGION ON MONDAY THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE HER WORSHIP FELICIA GANDEDZI, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. A11/01/2023 AGBENYAGAH KLAYE VRS 1 . QUICK CREDIT & INVESTMENT MICRO CREDIT LTD 2 . RICHLOVE SESHIE JUDGMENT The plaintiff is by this action seeking the Court to compel Defendant to hand over the original document of his Commercial vehicle which he used to secure a loan from the defendant, damage of Gh¢10,000.00 for the inconveniences caused the plaintiff, and Costs. The defendant were served with the Court processes but elected not to attend Court to defend this matter. The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his claims and stated to the Court briefly that he contracted loan facility to the tune of Gh¢1,000.00 with interest of Gh¢300.00 making a total of Gh¢1,300.00 which he has paid. Plaintiff told Court that he used his Car Document as collateral and after the loan payment he has made several demands for the return of his Car document to no avail. According to plaintiff his car was arrested and his vehicle documents were demanded by the police and that was when he rushed to the defendant to collect the document but they refused to let him have it due to that he is unable to use the vehicle for his commercial business. Plaintiff said he gets at least Gh¢700.00 every week and at most Gh¢2,800.00 every month from his commercial business as sales. According to plaintiff for eight months as at the time of given evidence the vehicle is parked and this has affected him financially as the vehicle is the source of income for his family. Section 12 (1) of NRCD 323 1975 state “except as otherwise provided by law, the burden on persecution required proof by a preponderance of probabilities” The issue for the Court is whether or not defendant took plaintiff’s vehicle document as collateral for the loan granted plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claim is that the defendant requested collateral of his commercial vehicle as a requirement for the loan he secured from defendant being Gh¢1,000.00 with interest of Gh¢300.00 totaling Gh¢1,300.00 which he has paid Whether or not defendants are in possession of plaintiff’s vehicle document being the original, the loan agreement filed by the plaintiff between the plaintiff and defendant dated 22-03-2022 had the loan repayment duration of 3 months expiring 21/6/2022 and has this stated under the loan collateral as follows “the parties hereby agree that the facility is secured in the following manners. Business assets and house assets or valuable assets as may be accepted to the credit committee. Properties or assets charged as security/collateral shall be maintained in good condition where applicable be secured for the full market value at all times with an insurance company. The borrower shall provide a guarantor who shall also served as witness to the borrower and the guarantor shall become jointly and severally liable for the debt of the borrower and the lender in the process of delivery in case of defauit. Recovery will be outsourced when need be. Clearly from this portion of the agreement and the evidence of the plaintiff’s witness the guarantor to the effect that the vehicle document was taken as collateral, the Court is convinced that on preponderance of probabilities the defendants are in possession of plaintiff’s vehicle document. From the evidence of plaintiff he makes at least Gh¢700.00 sales and Gh¢2,800.00 at most for a week and months respectively. The law is that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case, in the case of Banna Gyanti vrs Ama Badu (1963) 2 GLR 596 SC held that the evidence of the defendant only became important if it can upset the balance of probabilities which the plaintiff evidence might have created in the plaintiff favour or if it tends to corroborate the plaintiff evidence or tends to show that the evidence led on behalf of plaintiff was fine. The defendant’s having elected not to defend this manner does not take away the burden on plaintiff to proof his case. In every written agreement and with special reference to the agreement between the parties it must be respected by both parties. Plaintiff having complied with his part of the agreement to pay the loan principal and interest, his vehicle document should have been released to him without delay. The plaintiff’s claim for specific damages could not be proven, since he well knew about this contract and gave the original documents for collateral for the 3 months period. The question is did the plaintiff park the vehicle for this period as well. The assertion that he could not use the vehicle for commercial purpose and had it parked for 8 months does not convince the Court. That is not to say general damages is not deserving , order 15(1) of CI 59 states “A plaintiff may obtain any equitable relief which the facts stated and proved in the suit entitles that plaintiff even if that relief is has not been specifically asked for. The plaintiff has been able to convinced the Court that defendant’s are still holding on to his car document and this has caused him inconveniences Judgment is entered in favour of plaintiff to recover his vehicle document use as collateral for the loan from defendant. It is ordered that the defendant release plaintiff document to him. The Court award general damages of Gh¢5,000.00 for the inconvenience caused the plaintiff by way of equitable relief. Cost of Gh¢500.00 against defendant. SGD W/H FELICIA GANDEDZI DISTRICT MAGISTRATE