DANIEL SACKEY QUARCOOPOME vs. SANYO ELECTRIC TRADING CO. LTD & ANOR. [2007]DLCA6708

Date	2007-03-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/77/06
Citation No.	[2007]DLCA6708

AKAMBA J. A. PRESIDING

KANYOKE J. A.

MARFUL-SAU J. A.

MR. ROBERT TAY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

MR. EKOW AWOONOR FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

MR. YUONI KULENDI FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2007]DLCA6708
																																						<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" >DANIEL SACKEY
QUARCOOPOME<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SANYO ELECTRIC TRADING
CO. LTD &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

SUIT NO. HI/77/06&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 1ST MARCH 2007<o:p></o:p>

MR.
YUONI KULENDI FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU J.A. <o:p></o:p>This
appeal is taken from the judgment of the Accra Fast Track Court dated the 25th
October 2004.&nbsp; The brief facts of this
case are that, the 1st Defendant/Appellant Company herein after referred simply
to as 1st Defendant is a company incorporated under the laws of Japan and a
Shareholder of the 2nd Defendant/Appellant Company, which is a company
registered under the laws of Ghana.&nbsp; The
Plaintiff/Respondent herein called the Plaintiff alleged that he was appointed
by the 1st Defendant to the Board of the 2nd Defendant as a Director in
1974.&nbsp; Indeed the Plaintiff had initially
served on the Board of the 2nd Defendant from 1965 to 1972.&nbsp; The Plaintiff claims that on his appointment
to the 2nd Defendant board in 1974, he served the 2nd Defendant till year
2001.&nbsp; The Plaintiff alleging that he was
not paid for services he rendered as a Director of the 2nd Defendant company
sued the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant jointly and severally as follows: — <o:p></o:p>(1)
Damages for breach of an oral contract made in or about June/July 1974, appointing
the Plaintiff director to serve on the Board of Ghana Sanyo Company Ltd. and
witnessed in writing by a letter dated 4th October 1974 under and by virtue of
which the Plaintiff has worked and rendered service to the 1st Defendant and
2nd Defendant company as director, from 1st October 1974 up to 23rd February
2001, for which the Defendants have failed and or refused to pay the Plaintiff
reasonable Directors fees and lump sum remuneration as agreed. Alternatively <o:p></o:p>(2)
Adequate remuneration and compensation for services rendered to the Defendants
from 1974 to 2001 as Director on the Board of the 2nd Defendant company. <o:p></o:p>(3)
Interest on the said amount at the prevailing Bank rate. <o:p></o:p>At
the end of the trial the Court below found that the Plaintiff could not succeed
on his main claim for damages for breach of contract, to borrow the trial
courts own words due to the hazy and unclear terms of the oral agreement.&nbsp; Consequently the trial court proceeded to
consider the alternative claim of the Plaintiff for Quantum Meruit and awarded
an amount of ¢350,000,000.00 to the Plaintiff for dedicated and committed
service to the Defendants. <o:p></o:p>It
is against this judgment or award that the 1st and 2nd Defendants companies
have mounted this Appeal.&nbsp; The 1st
Defendant filed its Notice of Appeal on the 10th November 2004 by which four
grounds of Appeal were formulated.&nbsp; This
is at page 215 of the record of appeal.&nbsp;
On the 7th November 2005 the 1st Defendant filed Additional Grounds of
Appeal namely: <o:p></o:p>1.
That the Court below erred in holding that the Plaintiff was entitled to
recover remuneration as a director of the 2nd Defendant company on a Quantum
Meruit. <o:p></o:p>2.
That the Court erred when awarding to the Plaintiff the sum of ¢350,000,000.00
on the basis of Quantum Meruit for services rendered as a director by taking
into account the years that the directors of the company declined to pay
directors remuneration due to financial constraints in the company. <o:p></o:p>The
2nd Defendant Company on the other hand filed its Notice of Appeal on the 16th
November 2004 founded on twelve grounds, out of which five were argued in this
appeal.&nbsp; It is on record that on the 21st
of March 2006, the Plaintiff also filed a notice to contend that the decision
of the trial court be varied pursuant to leave granted him by this Court on
20th of March 2006.&nbsp; The Plaintiff whose
said Notice contained three grounds contended that the decision of the trial
court be varied as follows:— <o:p></o:p>1.
By increasing or ordering an increase in the award made by the learned trial
Judge by adding the compensation for the years that the Plaintiff participated
in the meetings that took the decisions to suspend payment of Directors fees
when the company was not doing well. Alternatively <o:p></o:p>2.
By increasing or ordering an increase in the award made by the learned trial
Judge by adding to the award the compensation for the years that the directors
declined not to pay directors remuneration due to financial constraints on the
company. <o:p></o:p>In
this appeal Counsel for the 1st Defendant argued the additional grounds of
Appeal filed on the 7th November 2005 and also ground (ii) of the Notice of
Appeal.&nbsp; As I have indicated earlier on,
Counsel for the 2nd Defendant argued five grounds out of the twelve grounds
filed in his Notice of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>The
fundamental issue to be resolved in this appeal, after a careful examination of
the record of appeal and the submissions filed by learned Counsels for the
parties herein can be stated thus:— <o:p></o:p>(1)</main>