SONG YONGZHI vs. HITECH DIGITAL PRINT COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. [2012]DLHC3890

Date	2012-10-10
Suit No.	NO.MISC/24/12
Citation No.	[2012]DLHC3890

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

MR. YAW BOAFO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MR. OSEI POKU FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2012]DLHC3890
																																						<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" >SONG YONGZHI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HITECH DIGITAL PRINT COMPANY LIMITED &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), KUMASI]<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">

NO.MISC/24/12&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: 10TH OCTOBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. YAW BOAFO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.<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">

ANGELINA
MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>In this application under section
218 of the Companies Act, 1963 Act 179, the Applicant is seeking the under
listed reliefs from this court:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">A
 declaration that the affairs of the Company, Hitech Digital Print Company
 Limited are being conducted in a manner oppressive to the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">An
 order necessary to regulate the conduct of the Company, Hitech Digital
 Print Company Limited.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">An
 order for accounts against the 2nd Respondent.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">An
 order for accounts of all monies of the Company, Hitech Digital Print
 Limited diverted to the private use of the 2nd Respondent.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">An
 order for accounts of all monies diverted by the 2nd Respondent
 into the operations of Walkman Media Company Limited.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">An
 order of tracing against Walkman Media Company Limited.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">An
 order for the removal of the 2nd Respondent as Director.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">An
 order that the Honourable court may make in the justice of &nbsp;the instant case pursuant to section 218
 of the Companies Act, 1963, Act 179.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Any
 such order or orders as this court may seem fit.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>The relevant facts of this matter
are these: The Applicant and the 2nd Respondent are Chinese businessmen
currently residing in Kumasi, Ghana. It is alleged that these men incorporated
the 1st Respondent Company, Hitech Digital Print Co. Ltd to carry on
the business of digital design and printing. In his affidavit in support of
this application, the Applicant averred that he and the 2nd
respondent subscribed to 37,500 shares each for a consideration payable in cash
of GH¢37,500.00. The Applicant further deposed that the 2nd
Respondent has virtually taken over the affairs of the 1st
Respondent Company; does not keep records of accounts and other proceeds accruing
to the company. The Applicant also stated that even though the 1st Respondent
Company is very profitable, the 2nd Respondent has never deposited
any monies accruing to the company from its operations into any bank account.
Again, he deposed that the 1st Respondent Company placed an order
for the supply and delivery of printing machinery and other equipments with
Shangdong Machinery &amp; Equipment Import and Export Group, China but on
arrival, the 2nd Respondent cleared and diverted the consignment to
a company he had clandestinely incorporated, namely Walkman Media Company
Limited, the 3rd Respondent herein. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The 2nd Respondent who
represented both the 1st and 3rd Respondents vehemently
opposed this application. By his affidavit in opposition filed on 20/03/2012,
he deposed that the Applicant fraudulently inserted his name as a director in
the Company’s Regulations and allocated 50% shares to himself, part of which he
fraudulently transferred to one Hilda Henyo without his knowledge and approval.
The 2nd Respondent further deposed that the Applicant has never
contributed any money or property as equity to the setting up and operations of
the companies but has rather engaged in under-dealings at the expense of the 1st
Respondent Company. The particulars of fraud were set out in paragraph 20 of
the affidavit in opposition. In setting up the business, the 2nd
Respondent deposed that he transferred monies from China to Ghana without any
contribution whatsoever from the Applicant. After the company i.e. Hitech Digital
Print Co. Ltd had been set up, the 2nd Respondent deposed that the
Applicant occupied one room in the company premises, without paying for water,
electricity, networks services and living expenses. &nbsp;In addition, he used some property of the
company free of charge.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;The Applicant’s first relief is a declaration
that the affairs of the 1st Respondent, Hitech Digital Print Company
Limited, are being conducted in a manner oppressive to him. Having made this
assertion on oath, the Applicant must further lead credible evidence in su</main>