SAMIR KALMONI vs. A. B. ASSAN AND AGRISPEL LTD [2010]DLCA5147

Date	2010-01-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/177/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA5147

ASARE-KORANG JA – (PRESIDING)

MARFUL-SAU JA

VICTOR OFOE JA

CHARLES PUOZUING FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

E. S. GOKA FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA5147
																																						<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" >SAMIR KALMONI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>A. B. ASSAN AND AGRISPEL LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<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. H1/177/2009&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; 21ST JANUARY, 2010 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CHARLES PUOZUING FOR PLAINTIFF/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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;tab-stops:4.5pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">E. S. GOKA FOR
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ASARE-KORANG
JA – (PRESIDING), MARFUL-SAU JA, VICTOR OFOE JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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
JA;
This appeal prays for the variation of the judgment delivered by the High Court
(Commercial Division) Accra dated the 18-11-08. By a Notice of Appeal filed on
the 25-11-08, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed against the said judgment of the
High Court on two substantive grounds namely:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">That
 the learned trial judge erred when she ordered that debts accruing to the
 2nd Defendant Company be paid to the 1st
 Defendant/Respondent.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">That
 the learned trial judge erred when she failed and/or neglected to evaluate
 Exhibit ‘6’ series (audited accounts) even though she held that the 2nd
 Defendant Company ‘s business had come to a stop as a result of the Plaintiff’s
 refusal to have the Defendant Company cheques co-signed.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>The Defendants/Respondents
on the 10-12-08 also filed a notice contending that the judgment be varied,
regarding their counterclaim in relief (2), which was granted by the trial High
Court. The part of the judgment sought to be varied is as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“an order that debts accruing to the 2nd
Defendant/Respondent Company as indicated by Exhibits ‘6’ series including the
judgment debt be paid by the Plaintiff/Appellant to the 1st
Defendant/Respondent”.<o:p></o:p>The ground for the
variation was formulated as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“the learned trial judge erred when
she failed to consider the interest that ought to have accrued on the debts of the
2nd Defendant/Respondent Company and on the basis of the said
failure ordered the Plaintiff/Appellant to pay to the 1st
Defendant/Respondent the said debts as indicated by the Exhibit 6 series only”.<o:p></o:p>On the 30-7-09 the
Registrar of this court issued a certificate that the Appellant had failed to
comply with Rule 20(1) of CI 19, accordingly on the 27-10-09 the Appellant’s
appeal was struck out for want of prosecution. The case was thus adjourned for
the Respondents notice for variation to be determined. This judgment is
therefore in respect of Respondents Notice of Variation. <o:p></o:p>The Respondents in their
statement of defence, counterclaimed against the Appellant for the following
reliefs:-<o:p></o:p>“1.
General damages against the plaintiff for unlawfully sabotaging and collapsing
the 2nd Defendant Company resulting in the collapse of the 1st
defendant’s own business.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;2&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order that all debts accruing to the 2nd Defendant Company from 1996 to the
date of final payment be to the account of the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">An order compelling
 the plaintiff to sign all the outstanding audited accounts of the 2nd
 Defendant Company within seven (7) days of the order.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">An order that the
 plaintiff buy out the 1st Defendant from the 2nd Defendant’s
 Company which was set up on the initiative and suggestion of the Plaintiff
 aforesaid after a fair valuation.”<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>At pages 324-325 of the
record of appeal the learned trial judge granted relief 2 of the counterclaim
in the following words:-<o:p></o:p>“1st Defendant is also
praying for an order that all debts accruing to the 2nd defendant
from 1996 be paid by plaintiff. I have already made a determination that
plaintiff is in breach of his duties towards the company, and section 210(8) of
Act 179 provides, that where justice requires, the court may order any sum due
to be paid to members or former members of the company instead of the company
itself. It is my opinion that this is a case in which section 210(8) can be
said to apply, and therefore will grant an order for the debts accruing to the
company as identified </main>