COURT OF APPEAL
DATE: 3RD MARCH, 1959.
BEFORE: KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A., AND OLLENNU J.
COUNSEL
Lassey for appellant.
The judge was wrong in holding that the interest charged was excessive. In the cocoa areas it is the practice to regard the giving of cocoa farms as security to mean that the land only is given as security, not the proceeds. Akyeampong had agreed to repay the sum loaned within 4 years. The finding that a copy of the document relating to the second transaction was not given to Akyeampong is without supporting evidence. Nor was that issue pleaded; it was raised for the first time in the evidence of Akyeampong.
per cur.: Do you contend that the document is enforceable?
Lassey: Yes. There is a conflict of evidence as between Akyeampong and his witnesses.
Respondent not represented, and not present.
JUDGMENT OF KORSAH C.J.
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.
DECISION
We therefore dismiss the appeal.
