Court enters judgment in favour of Oceanic Bank

Senior Magistrate Dayoh Small Dago of the Kanifing Magisatrates' Court recently entered judgment in favour of Oceanic Bank against TEK Solution and Beran Dondeh Gillen, first and second defendants respectively.

The bank was represented by Lawyer Badou S.M. Conteh.

Magistrate Dago ordered the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sum of D106,382.14.

He also awarded interest at 21 percent per annum on the said sum to the plaintiff from the 30 April 2010, until payment. Costs of D15,000 was as well awarded to the plaintiff.

In his judgment, Magistrate Dago told the court that he had seen in the court file that this action was initiated since on10 May 2010, and service was perfected on the defendants on 22 June 2010.

He added that the matter came up for mentioning on 15 September 2010, and the plaintiff's representative, Musa Sidibeh, was in court including counsel, B.S.M. Conteh, while the defendant was absent.

He added that the matter was adjourned till 29 September 2010, and that the plaintiff's representative was in court and the defendant still did not show up any appearance, stating that no reasons were given for his absence and the matter was further adjourned.

"By section 7 (1) of the Subordinate Court Civil Proceedings Act, I thereby enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum claimed and particulars of claim," the trial magistrate told the court.

According to the plaintiff's particulars of claim, the first defendant was at all material times a customer of the plaintiff and operated a current account with the plaintiff.

The second defendant is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the first defendant’s company.

The claim further stated that in the course of the operation of the first defendant’s account with the plaintiff, the first defendant by a letter dated 10 June 2009, applied for an overdraft facility of D100,000.

The plaintiff, in its claim, revealed that it agreed to grant the said overdraft to the first defendant and that on or about 12 June 2009, the overdraft facility of D100,000 was at the instance of the first defendant which was granted to the first defendant by the plaintiff.

It also contained the terms and conditions of the said facility and was dated 12 June 2009, which said facility was guaranteed by the second defendant.

The facility was to attract interest of 21 percent, and was subject to market realities.

Oceanic Bank went on to claim that the said facility was to be repaid within 180 days from the drawdown date

Following the use of the said facility, stated the bank, the first defendant did not honour or abide by the terms that had previously been agreed upon, adding that the said facility has not up to date been repaid.