PATRICIA MAUD ACQUAH (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. JUSTICE BAASAW AKROFUL & 3 ORS. (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)

ADINYIRA Mrs. J.S.C. I have had the opportunity to read beforehand the judgment of my brother Apaloo J.A. I concur with the decision that the appeal be allowed. I however wish to make a few comments. Counsel for the respondents in his statement of case argued that the 1st respondent was the sole shareholder at the time the shares were floated and he was only required to give notice to the Registrar of Companies, which he did. He also argued that the respondents could not have offered the shares to the appellant when she was not then a shareholder. He argued that a strict adoption of the decision in the Politis case would have collapsed the company. The problem raised in this appeal was similar to that of the Politis case, cited as Politis and Anr. v. Plastico Ltd. (No.2) [1967] G.L.R. 17, the facts of which case has been given in detail in the judgment just read. As much as I see the technicalities and dilemma faced by the directors of the company as raised by counsel for the res...