MS SHEERY AYITTEY PLAINTIFF vs. CARIDEM DEVELOPMENT CO. LIMITED MRS. PEACE ARYEE [2017]DLHC1288

Date	2017-06-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: CM/0124/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC1288

MS. PERPETUAL QUARCOO KUDZE FOR MR. NUTSUKPUI FOR THE PLAINTIFF

MS. STEPHANIE AMARTEIFIO FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC1288
																																						<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" ><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>MS SHEERY AYITTEY PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CARIDEM DEVELOPMENT CO. LIMITED<o:p></o:p>MRS. PEACE ARYEE<o:p></o:p>[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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

&nbsp;SUIT
NO.: CM/0124/2016&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 9TH
JUNE, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MS. PERPETUAL QUARCOO KUDZE FOR MR. NUTSUKPUI FOR THE PLAINTIFF&nbsp; <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">

MS. STEPHANIE
AMARTEIFIO FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU, J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<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>By a writ of
summons issued on the 11th February 2016, the plaintiff claims against the
defendants: <o:p></o:p>(a) A declaration that the 1st Defendant
lacks the authority to convene a meeting in respect of Nsawam Cannery Products
Company Limited and Calf Cocoa International Company Limited. <o:p></o:p>(b) A declaration that the purported
extraordinary general meeting of the 1st Defendant scheduled for 16th February
2016 is unlawful and void. <o:p></o:p>(c) An order restraining the 1st Defendant,
its officers or agents from holding or purporting to hold any meeting convened
and conducted contrary to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179). <o:p></o:p>(d) An order restraining the Defendants
whether by themselves, their agents, privies or assigns from convening, holding
or purporting to convene or hold any meetings of the 1st Defendant for any
purpose whatsoever in contravention of the provisions of Act 179. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After entering
appearance to the writ, the 1st defendant filed a statement of defence in which
it counterclaimed for a “declaration that the plaintiff is not a 100% trustee
and shareholder of the 1st defendant company.”&nbsp;
The case initially went before a pre-trial judge for settlement but,
when the parties failed to settle at pre-trial, the matter was placed before
the court for the trial of the following issues: <o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the Plaintiff has been removed as a trustee holding a 100% shares in the
1st Defendant Company. <o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the 31st December Women’s Movement has changed its name to Developing
Women’s Movement. <o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the new shareholder and trustee who was appointed after the removal of
the Plaintiff as trustee shareholder requisitioned the extra-ordinary general
meeting complained of.<o:p></o:p>4.</main>