ANDOH VRS. D & K EVERFRESH FOODS GH.LTD AND OTHERS (CM/BFS/0609/2021) [2025] GHAHC 42 (24 February 2025)

ANDOH VRS. D & K EVERFRESH FOODS GH.LTD AND OTHERS (CM/BFS/0609/2021) [2025] GHAHC 42 (24 February 2025)

The Plaintiff failed to prove that the 3rd Defendant executed a new mortgage agreement to secure the overdraft facility of GH¢75,000.00. The Plaintiff improperly relied on the earlier mortgage for a different loan, contrary to Section 5 of the Mortgages Act. Therefore, the 3rd Defendant’s properties cannot be used to satisfy the judgment debt for the overdraft facility, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd Defendant fails.

Citation
[2025] GHAHC 42
Parties
Plaintiff: Agricultural Development Bank; 1st Defendant: D & K Everfresh Foods Gh. Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Mr. Kofi Barnie; 3rd Defendant: Benjamin Nikoi Kotey
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 February 2025
Case Number
CM/BFS/0609/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial, Banking, Mortgage) / Judgment After Summary Judgment for 1st and 2nd Defendants; Full Trial for 3rd Defendant
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Mortgage Security, Overdraft Facility, Summary Judgment, Burden of Proof, Collateral Enforcement
Source Language
English
Banking Law Commercial Law Property Law Mortgage Security Overdraft Facility Summary Judgment Burden of Proof Collateral Enforcement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agricultural Development Bank

Plaintiff

D & K Everfresh Foods Gh. Ltd

1st Defendant

Mr. Kofi Barnie

2nd Defendant

Benjamin Nikoi Kotey

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial, Banking, Mortgage) / Judgment After Summary Judgment for 1st and 2nd Defendants; Full Trial for 3rd Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd Defendant used his property as collateral for the overdraft facility of GH¢75,000.00 granted to the 1st Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the 3rd Defendant breached the terms of the Mortgage Deed by refusing to pay the amount advanced to the 1st Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to judicial sale of the 3rd Defendant’s properties

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to prove that the 3rd Defendant executed a new mortgage agreement to secure the overdraft facility of GH¢75,000.00. The Plaintiff improperly relied on the earlier mortgage for a different loan, contrary to Section 5 of the Mortgages Act. Therefore, the 3rd Defendant’s properties cannot be used to satisfy the judgment debt for the overdraft facility, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd Defendant fails.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • No order for judicial sale of the 3rd Defendant’s properties.
  • Each party to bear their own cost.