ADOMAKO vs. APPENTENG [1994]DLCA698

Date	1994-01-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1994]DLCA698

ESSIEM JA

ADJABENG JA

BROBBEY JA

E D KOM FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KOJO AFRAM ASIEDU (FOR G K A OFOSU-AMAAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1994]DLCA698
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ADOMAKO<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">&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;&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; vs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">APPENTENG<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 1 GLR 81<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 27
January, 1994<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E D KOM FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KOJO AFRAM ASIEDU (FOR G K A OFOSU-AMAAH) FOR THE
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

ESSIEM, ADJABENG AND BROBBEY JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF BROBBEY JA<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff averred that he set up a company by name Vacuum Salt
Products Ltd. Following some discussion with the defendant, the plaintiff
allotted 100,000 shares in that company to the defendant on the express
understanding that the defendant would hold the shares in trust for the
plaintiff. That was in 1975. The plaintiff stated further in his affidavit
filed on 12 November 1992 that when dividends were declared in 1981 he
authorised the defendant to hold the cash paid in trust for him, the plaintiff.
The defendant refused later to pay the 1981 dividends back to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff therefore stopped payment of the 1983 dividends to the defendant.
Consequent upon certain government actions taken in connection with the company
in 1989, the plaintiff further stopped attempts to pay dividends to the
defendant. He also attempted to end the trust by a letter dated 28 April 1992.<o:p></o:p>When the dividends were not refunded to the plaintiff, he
instituted action against the defendant claiming three reliefs, namely:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1) a declaration that the appellant held the 100,000 shares of
the company in trust for him; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) an order for the defendant to transfer the shares to him; and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3) accounts of all dividends and profits arising from the shares.”<o:p></o:p>Before the action could proceed to hearing, the defendant’s
counsel filed a motion under Order 12, r 12 of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954 (LN 140A) to set aside the writ of summons on the sole ground that
the action was statute-barred. While arguing the motion in the High Court,
counsel for the defendant contended further that the writ disclosed no cause of
action. The trial judge dismissed the motion. It was against that dismissal
that the defendant appealed to this court.<o:p></o:p>In this court, too, counsel for the appellant argued the same two
points he canvassed before the trial court on want of cause of action and the
statutory limitation on the plaintiff’s section.<o:p></o:p>Throughout the pleadings and the proceedings before the High Court
and this court, the appellant has never denied that a trust was created by the
plaintiff with himself as the settlor and sole beneficiary and the appellant as
the trustee. Mr Kom who appeared for the appellant argued that 1975 was when
the cause of action arose. That could not be correct. 1975 was when the trust
was created. Dividends were not declared until 1981. The bone of contention
however revolves around the person who should be paid the dividends.<o:p></o:p>The respondent alleged that he had agreed with the appellant for
the latter to keep the dividends as additional allowance in his capacity as
chairman of that company. That too has not been denied by the appellant.
Apparently, that was the state of affairs until dividends were actually paid to
the appellant in 1991 as evidenced by a letter marked exhibit D1. To my mind
that seems to explain why the respondent did nothing about the dividends with
the appellant but revived the issue on the payment of dividends in 1991 when
the appellant was actually paid the dividends and he declined to repay same to
the respondent.<o:p></o:p>Since the appellant conceded that a trust was created, making him
only a trustee, he knew that he only had legal title to the dividends and the
respondent, as the sole beneficiary and holder of the equitable interest, was
entitled to be paid the</main>