JUDGEMENT  
The Plaintiff herein by a writ filed on the 15th day of April 2014 seeks the following reliefs against the Defendants jointly and severally.  
a) Recovery of the sum of One Million, Nine Hundred and Forty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Cedis, Ninety Two Pesewas. (GH&#572;1, 941. 880.92) being the outstanding balance of the facility, as at 31st March, 2014.  
b) Interest on the outstanding balance at 4% per month, compounded daily from 1st April, 2014 till final payment   c) Costs including Plaintiff’’s legal Costs.   
Or in the alternative:  
An order for the judicial sale of the following properties used as collateral:  
(i) No.3 Block O, house No.107 Owusu Poku Road, Ayigya, Kumasi with Certificate NO. 19171, Folio 183.  
(ii) No J298/1, off Coco Beach Street, with title Certificate GA/NO. 19171, Folio 179, Vol.35  
The Plaintiff’s case is that it is a private equity company providing financial support among others to corporate entities and businesses in Ghana.  The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are directors of the 1st Defendant, a Ghanaian registered limited liability company whilst the 3rd and 4th Defendants are property owners who offered their respective properties to be used as collateral for the facility arrangement between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant.  
Plaintiff avers that sometime in 2011, the 1st Defendant applied for a facility to import sugar into this country.  Further to this application, Plaintiff granted the 1st Defendant a loan of Five Hundred and Thirty Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Ghana Cedis, Forty Five Pesewas (GH&#572;530,280.45) to facilitate the importation of 12,500 metric tons of sugar. This facility was for a period of 360 days at an interest rate of 4% per month, compounded daily. Personal guarantees were executed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants who are directors of 1st defendant to secure the facility.  Additionally, the 4th and 5th Defendants offered their respective properties as collateral for the due repayment of the loan facility. According to Plaintiff, the Defendants are in default of their repayment obligations such that their indebtedness to Plaintiff stood at One Million, Nine Hundred and Forty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Ghana Cedis Ninety Two Pesewas. (GH&#572;1, 941, 880.92) as at the 31st day of March, 2014.  It is on the basis of the foregoing that Plaintiff has instituted the present action.  
3  
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants filed a joint Statement of Defence to Plaintiff’s writ.  Though they admit being granted a facility by Plaintiff, they state that the amount granted them was not the total required for the said importation but merely a deposit towards same.  The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5 Defendants deny that any formal demands had been made on them for the repayment of the loan aside mere discussions. They challenge the accuracy of the amount stated on the Plaintiff’s writ as their level of indebtedness and counterclaim as follows:  
a) Accounts of the loan should be audited for the correct amount owed by the Defendants to be ascertained  
b) No further interest should be charged on the loan  
c) Arrangement made between the Parties for the repayment of ascertained debt to be made by installment.   The 4th Defendant who is also said to be a director of 1st Defendant, filed a separate Statement of Defence on the 13th day of March, 2015 by which he admitted offering his property as security for the facility.  In line with the defence put up by the other Defendants, the 4th Defendant contended that the amount granted them was only intended as a deposit for the total amount required.  4th Defendant also challenged the correctness of the amount being claimed by Plaintiff and counterclaimed as follows:  
a) Accounts of the loan should be audited for the correct amount owed by the 1st   Defendant to be ascertained.  
b) Arrangements made between the Parties for the repayment of the ascertained debt to be made by installments.  
At the breakdown of pre-trial settlement, the following issues were set down for determination at the trial of the suit.  
 1)  Whether the Defendants have breached the repayment obligation in respect of   the facilities granted them by Plaintiff.  
2)  If so how much is owed by the Defendants.  
3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to its Claim and Defendants to their Counterclaim.    
 When the Parties appeared before this Court for further directions, Counsel for the 4th Defendant informed the Court that his instructions were at an end due to the death of the 4th Defendant. This Court therefore ordered him to file the necessary application for withdrawal from the suit in line with Order 75 Rule 6 of CI 47, if he was minded to withdraw as Counsel for 4th Defendant.  Counsel however, in total disregard of the order of this Court dated the 23rd day of March, 2016 filed a process entitled “NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF INSTRUCTIONS.”  By the said notice, 
4  
Counsel for the 4th Defendant sought to inform the Court that his instructions were at an end due to the death of the 4th Defendant. Aside the fact that there is no evidence on record substantiating Counsel’s claim that his client is currently deceased, it is trite learning that Counsel, having entered appearance on behalf of 4th Defendant, could only withdraw from the suit with leave of the Court. I am supported in this view by the case of WORLDWIDE SHIPPING V DARKO {2001-2002] GLR, 1140.  In the said case, the Court spelt out the various steps to be followed by Counsel seeking to withdraw from a suit.  The first step being the service of the notice of withdrawal on the Party whom Counsel represents.  This requirement is also specified under Order 75 Rule 6(2) of CI 47.  The said rule however provides as follows:   
Notice of an application for an order under this rule shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be served on the Party for whom the lawyer acted.    
The purport and effect of the said rule in my understanding, is to vest the Court, in appropriate cases, with the power to dispense with service of a lawyer’s application for withdrawal on the Party for whom he previously acted, if for instance, service on that Party becomes impracticable as was alleged by Counsel in this case.  
Consequently, granting without necessarily admitting that the 4th Defendant is truly deceased, this Court is still vested with the power to order that service of the application for withdrawal be dispensed with. I duly drew Counsel’s attention to this fact and also to the decision in the Worldwide Shipping case (supra) but Counsel obviously chose to ignore the prompting of this Court.  
Having taken the view that the said “NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF INSTRUCTIONS” filed by Counsel for 4th Defendant was unwarranted and unknown to our rules of Civil Procedure, this Court on the 20th day of April, 2016 ruled that the 4th Defendant, in law, remained a Party to the suit and that this Court will continue to consider lawyer Y. B. Asare of Boahene & Associates as acting for him. A copy of the said ruling was per the order of this Court, duly served on Counsel for the 4th Defendant who was absent on that date but this, and all subsequent processes, including hearing notices were ignored by him. It is trite learning that service of a process on a lawyer who is on record as acting for a Party constitutes proper service on that Party. See the case of ADU V ANKOMAH [1972] 1GLR 22   
Having continuously ignored Court processes served on him, it became quite apparent to this Court that the 4th Defendant no longer intended to contest the suit. The case therefore proceeded to trial without the 4th Defendant filing a witness statement.  
At the trial, the Investment Risk Manager, Eric Asae gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff. In support of Plaintiff’s case, he tendered the following exhibits.   EXHIBIT A: A resolution by the board of 1st Defendant Company to access a loan facility from Plaintiff.  
EXHIBIT B: A letter dated the 4th day of May, 2011 applying for a Commercial Paper of US$330.  
5  
EXHIBIT C: A letter dated the 4th day of November, 2011 addressed to Plaintiff applying for a Commercial Paper of Five Hundred and Thirty Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Ghana Cedis, and Forty Six Pesewas (GH&#572;530,280.46) for the importation of 12,500 metric tons of Brazilian sugar.  
EXHIBIT D: The term and investment sheet stipulating the terms and conditions governing the loan facility granted 1st Defendant Company by Plaintiff.  
EXHIBIT E, E1 AND E2:  Personal guarantees executed by the 2nd and 3rd and 4th Defendants as directors of 1st Defendant Company in favour of Plaintiff.  
EXHIBIT F AND G: The title documents covering the properties of 4th and 5th Defendants respectively which were furnished as security for the loan.  
EXHIBITS H AND J: Deeds of mortgage entered into between Plaintiff and the 4th and the 5th Defendants respectively.  
EXHIBIT K: Defendant’s statement of account as at the 6th day of May, 2016.   
Plaintiff’s witness testified that there was never a disagreement relating to the amount payable as interest on the facility and that the payment of interest could not be stopped as requested by the Defendants as the same was a major component of the agreement. He charged that, the Defendants’ call for a reconciliation of the accounts was only a ploy to delay proceedings in the suit as the amount owed by them was not in doubt.  Plaintiff lamented the lack of good faith shown by Defendants and prayed the Court to enter final judgment in its favour, against the Defendants jointly and severally. Under cross-examination, Plaintiff insisted that the Defendants were fully aware that the interest rate on the loan was not simple interest but 4% per month compounded daily as stipulated in EXHIBIT D.  The witness denied that the Plaintiff was out to “fleece” the Defendants and contended that the Defendants fully understood the terms of the loan facility.  
The 2nd Defendant in his witness statement filed on behalf of himself and the 1st, 3rd and 5th Defendants essentially admitted owing the Plaintiff but argued that the Defendants’ level of indebtedness stated by the Plaintiff had been inflated and was far in excess of the amount owed by the Defendants. The 2nd Defendant under cross- examination reiterated his admission that the Defendants indeed owed the Plaintiff but described the computation of their level of indebtedness as “usurious”.    
 At the end of the 2nd Defendant’s evidence, the Court found that the only issue left to be determined was the actual amount owed by Defendants to Plaintiff.  It therefore, informed Counsel of its intention to order the appointment of an independent referee 
6  
to assist the Court determine same. The Parties however prayed that they first be given the opportunity to go into accounts themselves, failure upon which the said referee could be appointed by the Court.    
On the 17th day of November, 2016 Counsel for 1st, 2nd 3rd and 5th Defendants announced to the Court that the Defendants were submitting to judgment in respect of the amount claimed by Plaintiff following the successful reconciliation of  accounts by the Parties.   
In the result, judgement is accordingly entered for Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:  
a)Recovery of the sum of One Million, Nine Hundred and Forty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Ghana Cedis. Ninety two pesewas (GH&#572;1, 941. 880.92).  
b) Interest on the outstanding balance at 4% per month, compounded daily, from the 1st day of April. 2014 till date of final payment.  
 Or in the alternative the judicial sale of the following Properties:   
i) No. 3A Block O, House No 107, Owusu Poku Road, Ayigya Kumasi, with Certificate No. KA 2077, Folio 183, Vol. 3.   ii) No. J298/1, off Coco Beach Street, with  Title Certificate GA 19171, Folio 179, Vol 35.  
I award costs of Three Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH&#572;3,000.00) against the Defendants jointly and severally in favour of Plaintiff.  
           [SGD]  MRS. AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH    JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT aey/  