ERNEST KOJO BONSU vs. HGS LIMITED, STEPHEN KARL TIMMS AND PHILIP STEPHEN PHILLIPS [2015]DLCA4507

ERNEST KOJO BONSU vs. HGS LIMITED, STEPHEN KARL TIMMS AND PHILIP STEPHEN PHILLI... [2015]DLCA4507

Date	2015-10-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H3/249/15
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA4507

KUSI-APPIAH JA (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE JA

AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA

MR. KWAME A. YANKYERA FOR THE PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT

MR. J. M. S. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS / RESPONDENTS

[2015]DLCA4507
																																						<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" >ERNEST KOJO BONSU<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(PLAINTIFF
/ APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">vs.<o:p></o:p>HGS LIMITED, STEPHEN
KARL TIMMS AND PHILIP STEPHEN PHILLIPS<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(DEFENDANTS / RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[COURT OF
APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISON), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">CIVIL APPEAL NO:&nbsp;
H3/249/15&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 22ND OCTOBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. KWAME A. YANKYERA FOR
THE 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">

MR.
J. M. S. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS / RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">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">

KUSI-APPIAH
JA (PRESIDING), ACQUAYE JA, AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AGYEMANG, JA:<o:p></o:p>In this interlocutory appeal, the appellant herein
seeks to have the ruling of the court below set aside, and for this court to
make an order for a forensic audit of the first defendant / respondent company
to be carried out by Ernst and Young, a firm of Chartered Accountants. This was
said to be in accordance with the agreement of the parties reached earlier,
aimed at determining the value of the first defendant / respondent (referred to
hereafter as the first respondent). <o:p></o:p>The determination of the value of the first
respondent company was contained in the ruling of the court below of 20th
December 2013. The purpose was to inform the buying out of the ten percent
share of the appellant herein in the first respondent, by the other respondents.
The order followed an application brought by the respondents herein under S.218 of the Companies’ Act 1963 Act 179
as remedy for alleged oppression of the appellant by the second and third
respondents. <o:p></o:p>The application was brought after the close of
pleadings and before the taking out of an application for directions. It
followed the plea of the respondents contained in an application for security
for costs that an order for a share purchase by the respondents of the
appellant’s shares would be a desirable course to resolve the dispute between
the parties. In that application it was said among others that this was because
the relationship of the parties was so irretrievably damaged that they could
not be expected to continue therein as members/officers of the company. <o:p></o:p>The learned trial judge appeared to be of the same
view and ruled that a share purchase order was the course to take. He however
held that for the order to be made, the court had to be apprised of the value
of the company, hence the need to have an audit and valuation of the company.
Thus did he order that the said audit/valuation be carried out by Ernst and
Young, a company chosen by agreement of the parties.<o:p></o:p>Following the order which was served on Ernst and
Young, that company set to work and reported back that it would not be able to
undertake a valuation of the company without carrying out a forensic audit. The
opinion of another firm of auditors: PriceWaterhouse was sought regarding the
conduct of a forensic audit and valuation. In his consideration of which
company to appoint to undertake the audit/valuation, PriceWaterhouse was dropped
as, per the learned trial judge in his ruling, that company in giving a
quotation, had concerned itself with the validation of accounts rather than a
forensic audit. Ernst and Young quoted the price of USD218,592 for same to be
undertaken. The respondents then went back to the court to complain that the
price tag for the forensic audit was enormous and could not be met by the first
respondent.The appellant disagreed, alleging that the first respondent could
afford to pay </main>