[2023]DLHC16972 • March 24, 2023 • High Court
STEPHEN KOMLA ADOM vs. DOMINION PAINTS MANUFACTURING
The dispute arose out of corporate control and management of Dominion Paints Manufacturing Ltd. On 1 December 2022, the respondent in the present application, as applicant in the substantive originating motion, invoked section 218 of the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) seeking injunctions and declarations to invalidate the appointments of certain directors, the company secretary, and the chief executive officer on the ground of non-compliance with the company’s regulations and Act 992. The applicants in the present application contended that those complaints had already been raised in an earlier pending suit, Dominion Paints Manufacturing Ltd v Stephen Adom, Suit No. E1/33/22, particularly in a statement of defence and counterclaim challenging the same appointments, resolutions, directorship changes, and corporate records. The court accepted that the later originating motion substantially duplicated the earlier counterclaim and therefore constituted an abuse of process. Portion of judgment: “On the 1st of December, 2022 the Respondent to the instant Application as Applicant therein filed an Originating Motion for an Order for Injunction and Declaration of Nullity under Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2019 Act 992… the reliefs being sought in the Respondent’s Originating Motion are virtually the same as those being sought in a prior suit filed by the 1st Applicant entitled DOMINION PAINTS MANUFACTURING LIMITED v STEPHEN ADOM in SUIT NO E1/33/22.”
read moreJUDGMENT INTRODUCTION On the 1st of December, 2022 the Respondent to the instant Application (as Applicant therein) filed an Originating Motion for an Order for Injunction and Declaration of Nullity under Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992). Upon service of the said Motion on the Applicants (as Respondents therein) they launched the present Application seeking an Order of this Court striking out Paragraphs 5 to 23 of the depositions in the affidavit filed in support of the said Originating Motion and for a further Order dismissing same. GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION According to the Applicants, their Application rests on the principle that the law frowns on a multiplicity of suits and that a party will not be permitted to institute several actions in respect of the same subject matter, when one will suffice. APPLICANT’S CASE The Applicant’s case in sum is that the reliefs being sought in the Respondent’s Originating Motion are virtually the same as those being...