[2015]DLCA8409 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; color:#00B0F0">ERNEST KOJO BONSU (SUING FOR HIMSELF AND AS MINORITY SHAREHOLDER IN HGS LTD</span></b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; color:#00B0F0">HGS LIMITED, STEPHEN KARL TIMMS AND PHILIP STEPHEN PHILLIPS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(DEFENDANTS / RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">CIVIL APPEAL: H3/249/2015 </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">DATE: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">22<sup>ND</sup> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">OCT, 2015</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">MR. KWAME A. YANKYERA FOR THE PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">MR. J. M. S. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS / RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">CORAM:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">KUSI-APPIAH JA (PRESIDING), ACQUAYE JA, AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"> <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">AGYEMANG, JA:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">The determination of the value of the first respondent company was contained in the ruling of the court below of 20<sup>th</sup> 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 <b>S.218 of the Companies’ Act 1963 Act 179</b> as remedy for alleged oppression of the appellant by the second and third respondents. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">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: Price Waterhouse was sought regarding the conduct of a forensic audit and valuation. In his consideration of which company to appoint to undertake the audit/valuation, Price Waterhouse 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 for the forensic audit ordered.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">To make a determination on the matter, the court ordered the respondents to file an affidavit of means of the first respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">In an application that was resisted unsuccessfully by the appellant, the court below, relying on audited accounts presented as showing the financial standing of the first respondent from 31 December 2009 to 30 September 2013,ruled inter alia, that: “The Court can therefore not make any orders against the first defendant to pay for the costs of the forensic audit. The parties will therefore be advised to reach out to other accounting firms who would be prepared to value the assets of the company at a fee that will be affordable to the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant company”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">It is against this ruling, that the present appeal has been brought.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">The appellant