MIRFIELD PROPERTIES LTD. vs. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STARWIN. , I.C. SECURITIES (GH) LTD. AND DANNEX LTD. [2016]DLHC3507

MIRFIELD PROPERTIES LTD. vs. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STARWIN. , I.C. SECURITIES (G... [2016]DLHC3507

Date	2016-06-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO.SEC/AHC/16/2015
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3507

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2016]DLHC3507
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">MIRFIELD
PROPERTIES LTD.<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STARWIN. , I.C. SECURITIES (GH) LTD. AND
DANNEX LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
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.SEC/AHC/16/2015&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; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 15TH JUNE, 2016 <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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR 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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court has been invoked in the two
appeals to determine the correctness of the decision of the Administrative
Hearing Committee (AHC) under the Securities Industry Act, Act 333 whose
decision was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission);
in respect of renounceable rights offering or rights issue by Starwin Products
Ltd (SPL). Based on the rights offering Dannex Ltd. became the new majority
shareholder with 75% shares in SPL. Following the approval of the decision by
the Commission two separate appeals were launched before the High Court. The
first appeal which was initially before the Financial Division of the High
Court was by four directors of SPL against I. C. Securities, the transaction
advisers and Dannex Ltd. who will be directly affected by this decision. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The second appeal by the appellant in suit number ACC/16/2015, who until
the rights offering was the majority shareholder was launched before the
Commercial division.<o:p></o:p>An order was made consolidating the two appeals by the honourable lady Chief
Justice more so when guided by Order 31 rule
2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) of 2004, (CI 47) by which it is
provided:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Where two or more causes
or matters are pending in the same Court and it appears to the Court<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That some common question
of law or fact arises in both or all of them, or<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the rights to relief
claimed are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions or<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That for some other reason
it is desirable to make an order under this rule……”<o:p></o:p>The
common questions of law or facts from the two appeals for determination by the
court are: a. whether or not I. C Securities usurped the powers of the
shareholders and the directors of SPL in the allotment of shares to Dannex Ltd.
and the other persons who took up shares and two, whether or not the Regulation
9 of SPL had been violated in the process of the allotment of shares.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant in suit no. ACC/16/2015 aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision
of the Commission and its hearing Committee seeks the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>