HANNAH ASANTE AND FRANCIS ASANTE vs. KWADJO ASANTE CONTRACT LIMITED AND OTHERS [2018]DLHC3339

Date	2018-02-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.MISC/0096/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3339

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

SOLOMON BOYE BONSU ESQ. FOR APPLICANT.

NO LEGAL RREPRESENTATION FOR RESPONDENTS

[2018]DLHC3339
																																						<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" >HANNAH ASANTE AND
FRANCIS ASANTE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWADJO ASANTE CONTRACT
LIMITED AND OTHERS<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.MISC/0096/2017&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 9TH
FEBRUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SOLOMON BOYE BONSU ESQ.,
FOR APPLICANT.<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">

</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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By an originating motion
on notice filed on the 7th June 2017, the applicants herein pray the
court for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
declaration that the 1st respondent company is administering its
business and carrying on its affairs in a manner that does not comply with its
Regulations and the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179)<o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
declaration that the appointment of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
respondents as directors of the 1st respondent company is wrongful
and does not comply with the Regulations of the 1st Respondent and
the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179).<o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
declaration that the affairs of the 1st respondent company over the
period from 23rd December, 2010 till date were conducted and are
being conducted in breach of sections 99, 124, 125 and 131 of the Companies Act,
1963 (Act 179).<o:p></o:p>(iv)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
declaration that the 5th and 6th respondents do not have
any locus to control and/or manage the affairs of the 1st respondent
company.<o:p></o:p>(v)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
declaration that the entry of the names of the 2nd, 3rd
and 4th respondents as directors of the 1st respondent
company by the 7th respondent in its record was unlawful and without
any justification whatsoever.<o:p></o:p>(vi)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp</main>