[2025]DLCA18399 • June 26, 2025 • Court of Appeal
FELIX AMPADU ASOMANING vs. DOMINIC ANANE
The Plaintiff, Felix Ampadu Asomaning, sued the Defendant, Dominic Anane, for recovery of GHC 359,024.00, alleged to be owed for supply of Glyphosate and Paraquate. The Plaintiff claimed a running account since 2014. The Defendant contended he was not personally liable, asserting that the transactions were with Nadnic Enterprise Limited, a limited liability company of which he is Managing Director, and that the company, not he personally, was liable for the debt. The Plaintiff maintained that the goods were sold to the Defendant personally, supported by ProForma Invoices issued in the Defendant's name. The Defendant sought to subpoena the Registrar of Companies and Bank of Africa to prove the company's status and payments made by the company, but the High Court refused this application.
read moreJUDGMENT ZWENNES, J.A. BACKGROUND: This is an interlocutory appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, dated the 4th day of July 2023 refusing the Defendant/Applicants’ (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) application seeking to subpoena the Registrar of Companies and the Bank of Africa. The Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) in the said action sued the Appellant for recovery of the sum of GHC359,024.00 being the cumulative indebtedness of the Appellant to the Respondent for the supply of goods, being Glyphosate and Paraquate. According to the Respondent, both parties had been doing business together since 2014 and the supply of the goods to the Appellant which he was liable to pay for was kept on a running account. The essence of the Appellants’ defence to the action was that he did not personally have dealings with the Respondent for the sale and purchase of the goods, and that instead, it was a company called “Nadnic Enterprise Lim...