FRANCIS KORANTENG vs. CROCODILE MATCHETS (GH) LIMITED. [2012]DLHC5534

Date	2012-04-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO: INDL/22/10
Citation No.	[2012]DLHC5534

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR J. A. AYEETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

MR ACE ANKOMAH WITH MS. GOLDER DENYO FOR THE DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT

[2012]DLHC5534
																																						<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" >FRANCIS KORANTENG <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CROCODILE MATCHETS
(GH) LIMITED.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION), 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: INDL/22/10&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: 25TH APRIL,
2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&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; <o:p></o:p>MR J. A. AYEETEY FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<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">

MR
ACE ANKOMAH WITH MS. GOLDER DENYO FOR THE DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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">

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
ruling is in respect of motion on notice filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant on 2nd
February, 2011 to set aside this Court’s Anton Piller Order given on 13th
December, 2010 which the Defendant/Respondent has opposed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
attached affidavit in support, the Plaintiff/Applicant avers that his case is
directed towards establishing that the Defendant/Respondent is involved in tax
deals so if the Order is allowed to stay it would create hardship for him. He goes
on to contend that by the Order, the evidence that would be led in his case would
be virtually erased and thus prevent him from establishing his case which would
be most unfair. He claims that he has alleged fraud in the Accounts of the
Defendant/Company and pleaded that the court should give an order for the
Registrar of Companies to look at the manner of operating in that Company. In
view of that if all the records to substantiate his allegations are
surrendered, it would mean there is nothing else to establish against the
Defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiff/Respondent contends that the approach will be against the rules of
natural justice for the court order to be complied with without hearing his
side of the matter. The court should, therefore, rescind the order to enable
him to establish his case so that justice would be done. He avers that there is
a strong case of fraud in the Defendant/Company which needs investigation and
if this happens and his records are erased the Registrar of Companies cannot
reach the truth.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He goes
on to contend that if the Defendant has property in any information in his
custody, the Defendant has recourse to damages if such information is used
unlawfully. So the use of any relevant information in his lawful custody to
prosecute his claim must not be disallowed. He claims that it is for the
Defendant to establish that he has misused any information he has. He says as a
professional accountant he has not abused any such information and that once
the material is in his custody, it no longer belongs to the Defendant in so far
as he has not used any legal means to obtain the information.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He
concludes that the Defendant has questioned his professional competence and
integrity so if he has to surrender all such documents in his custody he cannot
defend himself or prosecute his case in the interest of justice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant
on the other hand has opposed the motion in an affidavit sworn to by Kwesi Fynn
and filed on 14th February, 2011. The Defendant contends that the
application is without merit and has no legal basis. It avers that since
leaving the Defendant’s employment, the Plaintiff has unlawfully used the
Defendant’s business records sending them to a number of people leading the
Defendant with no option but to apply for the Anton Piller Order to enable it
retrieve its business records in the Plaintiff’s possession.<o:p></o:p>