AKAKPO vs. SOLI AND OTHERS [1968]DLHC10251

Date	1968-03-21
Suit No.	G L R 267 - 279
Citation No.	[1968]DLHC10251

AMISSAH J. A.

PLAINTIFF IN PERSON.

J. REINDORF (WITH HIM ADDO) FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.

N. OLAGA FOR HIMSELF AND THE THIRD DEFENDANT.

[1968]DLHC10251
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >AKAKPO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOLI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">G L
R 267 - 279&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 21ST
MARCH, 1968<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF IN PERSON.<o:p></o:p>J. REINDORF (WITH HIM ADDO) FOR THE FIRST
DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

N. OLAGA FOR HIMSELF
AND THE THIRD DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;AMISSAH
J.A.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;These proceedings are brought before me by
way of a case stated under section 24 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1961 (Act
38).&nbsp; The case is stated by the
arbitrator appointed to go into the case arising out of a partnership dispute
which was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants.&nbsp; The question of law arising for determination
is whether in accordance with section 39 (7) of the Incorporated Private
Partnerships Act, 1962 (Act 152), the second defendant, Mr. E. K. Narter-Olaga
and the third defendant, Miss Genoveva Esther Marais, ceased to be partners in
the Express Packing and Service Company as from 18 February 1966 or whether
they remained partners in that company after that date.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;There is no dispute that before 18 February
1966, all the parties to the action were partners in the company.&nbsp; At the end of 1966, one Mr. Soli, who is the
husband of the first defendant but who was not a partner in the company,
purported to dismiss the plaintiff from the company.&nbsp; Presumably Mr. Soli took this action because
he thought he had such right conferred upon him by the fact that he had
provided some of the funds for setting up of the company.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;But in January 1967, the irregularity in the
purported dismissal was pointed out by the second defendant to him and the
plaintiff was reinstated.&nbsp; I must confess
that I am surprised at the open exercise of power by Mr. Soli in the company's
affairs which the partners permitted.&nbsp;
After all he was not one of them.&nbsp;
And the running of a partnership business is a matter for the partners.&nbsp; However, Mr. Soli's interference with the
company's affairs is not the issue before me, I therefore refrain from further
comment on him.&nbsp; Before the plaintiff's
purported dismissal one Mr. Lindsay had been employed as an auditor-secretary
to the company.&nbsp; And disputes had flared up
between him and the plaintiff.&nbsp; These
disputes continued after the plaintiff's re-instatement.&nbsp; The plaintiff, therefore sought an order from
the court directing the defendants as partners of the company to submit
themselves to arbitration as appears in the partnership agreement and to restrain
the partners from changing the system of administration of the partnership
business as agreed between the parties or from doing any act other than what
the partners have agreed upon until any matters or disputes in the partnership
business had been determined at an arbitration.&nbsp;
The plaintiffs' originating summons was filed on 18 January 1967.&nbsp; The arbitrator was appointed with the consent
of all the parties to investigate their differences and to submit a report to
the court.&nbsp; It was after this that Mr.
Lindsay, now holding a power of attorney from the first defendant empowering
him to represent her in all matters concerning the company, raised the question
whether the second and third defendants had not ceased to be partners in the
company on 18 February 1966, that is, on the date that the second defendant
wrote a letter speaking of his and the third defendant's withdrawal and
retirement from the company.&nbsp; The
question by Mr. Lindsay on behalf of the first defendant was raised on 17 June
1967.&nbsp; This was over fifteen months after
the letter in question.&nbsp; From now onwards
it would make matters clearer if&nbsp; I
referred to the first defendant as the applicant.&nbsp; For the issue was substantially fought
between her as applicant and the second and third defendants as
respondents.&nbsp; I shall continue describing
these respondents as the second and third defendants but the plaintiff, I shall
call by his proper name, i.e. Mr. Akakpo.&nbsp;
The body of the letter written by the second defendant on 18 February
1966, is as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"Dear Sir,<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;WITHDRAWAL OF PARTNERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Pursuant to the general meeting of the
partners or their representatives and senior staff on 17 February 1966, be it
recorded that Mr. E. K. Narter-Olaga and Miss G. E. Marais [p.270] have
withdrawn and retired from the Express Packing &amp; Service Company and are no
longer partners thereof.&nbsp; The necessary
changes in the company’s documents should be effected forthwith and the
Registrar of Companies be informed forthwith under section 7 (1) of the
Incorporated Private Partnerships Act.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Arrangements to publish the change in any of
the daily papers shall be made accordingly.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;