BERNARD SAM vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2014]DLCA3640

Date	2014-10-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/42/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA3640

MARIAMA OWUSU J.A. (PRESIDING)

V. D. OFOE J. A.

GERTRUDE TORKORNOO J. A.

S. K. AMOAH FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

D. A. SARPONG FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2014]DLCA3640
																																						<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" >BERNARD SAM<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"><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. H1/42<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 30TH
OCTOBER, 2014<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>S. K. AMOAH FOR
APPLICANT/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">

D.
A. SARPONG FOR RESPONDENT/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">

MARIAMA
OWUSU, J.A. (PRESIDING), V. D. OFOE, J. A. AND GERTRUDE TORKORNOO, J. A.<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>GERTRUDE TORKORNOO, J. A:<o:p></o:p>When
it comes to ending the operation of a company, one does not have the option of
using many ways. From Sections 246 to 261, The Companies Code 1963 Act 179 and
Bodies Corporate (Official Liquidations) Act, 1963 (Act 180) designate two main
models for doing so. These are private or official liquidation and winding up. Departing
from these models will cause invalidity of the process through infringement of
statute. The case of the appellant is that on 19th August, 2011, the
Directors of Capricorn Development Company Limited wrote to the Registrar of
Companies stating that: <o:p></o:p>‘The
directors of Capricorn Development Company Ltd. with effect from this day 22nd
August, 2011 wish to cancel our ‘Capricorn Development Company ‘due to
financial constraint and hope the Registrar of Companies will take action on it.’
<o:p></o:p>With
this request and nothing more, the office of the Registrar General proceeded ten
(10) days later on 1st September, 2011 to issue a ‘NOTICE
OF DISSOLUTION OF COMPANY’ and declared the
company dissolved and its name struck off the Register of Companies. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>The
appellant, who had been part of the directors who signed the alleged ‘cancellation’
letter backtracked and returned to court with a motion pursuant to Section 261
(6) of Act 179 to seek a restoration of the name of the company to the register
of companies. The learned trial judge described the application as ‘trying
to conjure back a company the (appellant) himself caused the Registrar General
to dissolve’. He refused the application hence this appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
grounds of appeal are that: <o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
Learned Judge erred in refusing the application for restoration of the name of
Capricorn Development Company to the register of companies.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned
trial Judge erred by failing to adequately consider the Appellant’s application.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
ruling/decision is against the weight of the evidence before the court below.<o:p></o:p>It
is my humble evaluation that this is a case which typifies the horrors of
delays in our justice system. The appeal record is all of 24 pages. So why has
it taken this appeal so long to</main>