NOWFILL S. LABA vs. LENNAP AND CO. AND LATEX FOAM RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD [2016]DLHC9065

Date	2016-12-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MISC/0062/16
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC9065

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

JUSTICE KUSI-MINKA PREMO ESQ. OF MINKA-PREMO & CO. AKOSOMBO CHAMBERS ACCRA COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT

THADDEUS SORY ESQ. OF SORY@LAW ACCRA COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT

LATEX FOAM RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD ACCRA 2ND RESPONDENT

[2016]DLHC9065
																																						<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" >NOWFILL
S. LABA<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LENNAP
AND CO. AND LATEX FOAM RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o: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">SUIT NO. MISC/0062/16&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: 12TH DECEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE KUSI-MINKA
PREMO, ESQ., OF MINKA-PREMO &amp; CO., AKOSOMBO CHAMBERS, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR
APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>THADDEUS SORY,
ESQ. OF SORY@LAW, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

LATEX
FOAM RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD, ACCRA, 2ND RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Against the backdrop of the Applicant’s
originating notice of motion filed with the Registry of this Court on June 9,
2016 for declarative and injunctive reliefs against the 1st
Respondent, who according to the Applicant, was perpetuating irregularity and
acts of illegality in the name of the 2nd Respondent (hereinafter,
the “Company”) under Section 217 of the Companies Act, 1963, Act
179 (hereinafter, the “Companies Act”), the 1st Respondent,
on June 27, 2016, filed an application for an order to strike out the said
motion. The grounds for the application of the 1st Respondent
catalogued in its motion paper state as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:54.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-54.0pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-18.0pt;line-height:
150%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Applicant
has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court against 1st
Respondent for reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:54.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-54.0pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-18.0pt;line-height:
150%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Applicant
has no cause of actions against 1st Respondent in so far as the
allegations upon which Applicant’s action are founded is concerned.<o:p></o:p>After
carefully considering the various arguments canvassed by Counsel for 1st
Respondent to strike out the substantive application and those by Counsel for
Applicant against its dismissal respectively, and the affidavit evidence that
was placed before me, I decided that a determination of the issues raised in
the motion to strike out the Applicant’s substantive application would have the
import of determining some pertinent aspects of that substantive
application.&nbsp; For that reason, I went
ahead to dismiss the motion filed by the 1st Respondent to strike
out the Applicant’s originating notice of motion but reserved my reasons to be
delivered later when I determine the substantive application, which I now
proceed to do in this judgment.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
the wake of my dismissal of the 1st Respondent’s application to
strike out the Applicant’s substantive application, the 1st
Respondent filed its affidavit in opposition to the Applicant’s originating
notice of motion in pursuance of the directives of the Court.&nbsp; I have reviewed the grounds on which the 1st
Respondent opposes the grant of the substantive application filed by the
Applicant.&nbsp; It is my conclusion that the
Statement of Case filed by the 1s</main>