ALAGBADE v.

AKYEAMPONG
[1959] GLR 96

Division: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Date: 3RD MARCH, 1959.
Before: KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A., AND OLLENNU J.

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.

HEADNOTES
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).
Held:
(1) that there was ample evidence on record to support the findings;
(2) that the judge’s conclusion that both notes were void and unenforceable was correct in law.

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.