STEPHEN ADDAE AND JAMES OTENG POKU vs. ATWIMA MPONUA RURAL BANK LTD AND THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS [2017]DLHC4123

STEPHEN ADDAE AND JAMES OTENG POKU vs. ATWIMA MPONUA RURAL BANK LTD AND THE CHA... [2017]DLHC4123

Date	2017-01-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MISC 04/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4123

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

S. ANAGLATE FOR APPLICANTS

KOFI BOYEATENG FOR RESPONDENTS

[2017]DLHC4123
																																						<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" >STEPHEN ADDAE AND JAMES
OTENG POKU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; vs.<o:p></o:p>ATWIMA MPONUA RURAL BANK LTD AND THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. MISC 04/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 10TH JANUARY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL
<o:p></o:p>S. ANAGLATE FOR APPLICANTS<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In
this application pursuant to Section 217 of the Companies Act 1963 (Act 179),
the Applicants seek against the Respondents the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the Annual General
Meeting of the 1st Respondent scheduled to be held on Friday, 11th of November,
2016 at Toase - Ashanti Region is illegal and irregular.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An Order of Injunction restraining the
1st and 2nd Respondents from proceeding with the said meeting until Section 149
(2) of the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179) and the Bank of Ghana directive
contained in a letter dated the 8th of October, 2015 addressed to the 2nd
Respondent are complied with.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Further orders as the Honourable Court
will deem fit and just in the circumstances. <o:p></o:p>The
grounds of the application are contained in the affidavit in support and
supplementary affidavits filed on 9th November, 2016 and 12th December, 2016
respectively.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondents are opposed to the application and have demonstrated the grounds in
the affidavit in opposition filed on 22nd November, 2016.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicants’ case is that the 1st Respondent submitted its 2015
Annual Report to them on 31st October 2016. The Annual Report
happened to be one of the matters to be discussed at the annual general meeting
scheduled for 11th November 2016. Applicants contend that the late release of
the said report is not only illegal and irregular but also an unfair treatment
of the Shareholders of the company who are entitled to know all the affairs of
the company. The Applicants also allege that inspite of the Bank of Ghana’s
disqualification of one William Asamoah Manu as director of the bank, the
Respondents have failed to comply with the order of the regulator, Bank of Bank
(BOG) as per the Annual Report of the Bank, the said William Asamoah Manu is
still listed as a director and is in fact holding himself as a director of the
1st Respondent Bank and enjoying all the largesse which goes with the
said position. The Applicants attached the 2nd Respondent to the
action simply because the BOG letter directing that William Asamoah Manu be
removed as a director of the 1st Respondent was addressed to the2ndRespondent
in his capacity as the Board Chairman of the 1st Respondent.<o:p></o:p>While
it is not in dispute that the Applicants are shareholders of the 1st
Respondent Bank and as such have the capacity to institute the instant action,
the Respondents contend that the Applicants are acting in bad faith as the
action is a ploy calculated to frustrate steps being currently undertaken by
the 1st Respondent to recover monies they (Applicants) owe. The
Respondents also allege that the total shares of the Applicants are for below 1%
and are indebted to the 1st Respondent.<o:p></o:p>