Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /home/ghanalegal/domains/ on line 101 ALAGBADE v. AKYEAMPONG | GhanaLegal - Resources for the legal brains


  • appeal
  • 1959-03-03
  • GLR 96-97
  • Print



Money?-Lenders Ordinance, secs. 12(1), 13, 26(1)?-Loans Recovery Ordinance, sec. 3(1)?-Excessive interest?-Failure to supply borrower with copy of memorandum?-False statement of principal and interest in memorandum.


This was an action by Yesufu Alagbade, a moneylender, for 606 0s. 3d., being the balance due from Kwao Akyeampong on two loan transactions, made on the 2nd February, 1954 and the 20th April, 1954 respectively. Two memoranda, bearing those dates, were put in by Alagbade at the trial as exhibits "A" and "B" respectively. Each loan was secured with a cocoa farm.Section 13 of the Money-lenders Ordinance establishes maximum rates of interest for various types of loan, and provides that if these be exceeded the Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume for the purposes of sec. 3 of the Loans Recovery Ordinance that the interest charged is excessive, and that the transaction is harsh and unconscionable.Section 3(1) of the Money-lenders Ordinance provides that a money-lending transaction shall be unenforceable unless a memorandum in writing of the contract be made and signed by the parties, and unless a copy of such memorandum be delivered to the borrower.Section 26(1) of the Money-lenders Ordinance makes it an offence for a money-lender to take as security for a loan a promissory note in which to his knowledge the principal is not truly stated, and section 26 (2) of that Ordinance provides that such a promissory note shall be void and unenforceable.In the instant case Manyo-Plange J. found as facts?-(1) that on each of the two loans Alagbade had charged interest in excess of that permitted by section 13 of the Money-lenders Ordinance;(2) that on the first transaction Alagbade had not truly stated in the memorandum the principal amount lent and the interest charged, contra section 26 (1);(3) that on the second transaction Alagbade never gave Akyeampong a copy of the memorandum relating to it (Exhibit B), as required by section 12 (1).The learned Judge accordingly held that the first transaction was void and unenforceable, and that the second transaction was unenforceable. His lordship also directed that a copy of the proceedings be sent to the local Senior Superintendent of Police.The plaintiff (Alagbade) appealed (Civ. App. No. 87/58).


Korsah C.J. delivered the judgment of the Court:

The only ground argued before us in this appeal is that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. The findings are that the appellant, as a money-lender, did not truly state the principal amounts lent, and the interest charged on two Promissory Notes upon which he grounded his claim; and that he did not give a copy of the promissory note in the second loan transaction to the respondent-borrower.

There is ample evidence on record to support these findings.

In our view the learned Judge's conclusion that both promissory notes are void and unenforceable under the provisions of section 26 (2) and section 12 (1) of the Money-lenders Ordinance is well founded.


<P>We therefore dismiss the appeal.</P>

Plaintiff / Appellant


Defendant / Respondent



Warning: fopen(/home/ghanalegal/domains/ failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/ghanalegal/domains/ on line 44 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/ghanalegal/domains/ on line 46 Warning: fclose() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/ghanalegal/domains/ on line 48