Loans Recovery Ordinance, Cap. 175 as the courts read it.

Now and again attempts have been made to circumvent one or, other of these three forms of moneylending transaction to the advantage of the creditor, and to the detriment of the debtor. And people in financial distress have been compelled to execute deeds in respect of unconscionable transactions which do not represent the true nature of the transaction between them. It is to meet such harsh cases and other matters connected with moneylending transactions that the Loans Recovery Ordinance, Cap. 175 (1951 Rev.), was enacted, to give the court jurisdiction to determine the real nature of a transaction, despite the form in which the transaction is recorded in writing. The courts are bound to give effect to that enactment so long as it remains on the statute book.

BUCKLE v. BASSIL AND ANOTHER [1967] GLR 237 [1967] SLR (CA) 9 · Court of Appeal · 1967 · OLLENNU JA