UNIVERSAL MERCHANT BANK (PLAINTIFF) vs. DANADAMS PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRY LIMITED AND DR. YAW ADU GYAMFI (DEFENDANTS) [2018]DLHC7352

UNIVERSAL MERCHANT BANK (PLAINTIFF) vs. DANADAMS PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRY LIMITE... [2018]DLHC7352

Date	2018-02-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CM/BFS//0349/16
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7352

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

DANIYAL ABDUL-KARIM ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.

BONSU ASHIA ESQ. FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2018]DLHC7352
																																						<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" >UNIVERSAL MERCHANT BANK<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DANADAMS PHARMACEUTICALS
INDUSTRY LIMITED AND DR. YAW ADU GYAMFI<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT
NO: CM/BFS//0349/16&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;DATE: 9TH FEBRUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>DANIYAL ABDUL-KARIM ESQ.,
FOR PLAINTIFF/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">

BONSU
ASHIA ESQ., FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.<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 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
instant application prays “for an order for the appointment of a receiver to
take over and manage the affairs of the 1st defendant upon the
grounds contained in the accompanying affidavit.” The application is brought
under Order 27 rules 1 and 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004,
CI.47 and also under sections 87(1) (b) and 88 of the Companies Act 1963, Act 179.
The respondents are opposed to the application as shown by their affidavit in
opposition.<o:p></o:p>The
respondents have taken issue with the propriety of the application. It has been
argued that if the applicant seeks to enforce a debenture by virtue of exhibit
AAB3 by which the applicant says that as security for the repayment of a loan
granted, a debenture was created over certain assets of the 1st
defendant company, then the plaintiff should, first, have instituted a
debenture action, as provided for under Order 61 of the High Court Rules,
before it can apply for receivers to take charge of the assets of the company
as prayed by the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>It
must be placed on record that the plaintiff’s action is not one that seeks to
enforce a registered debenture or debenture stock per se. The plaintiff’s
action is for the <o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery
of the sum of US$4,673,960.84<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest
at the contractual rate 10% on the said sum of US$4,673,960.84 from 21st
January, 2016 to the date of full and final payment.<o:p></o:p>In the alternative:<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order for the judicial sale of the following:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
mortgaged property situate at plot No. 690, Block 22, Section 018, Baatsona,
Accra.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; All
assets of the 1st Defendant (Plant and Machinery).<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost
on full indemnity basis.<o:p></o:p>Debenture
defies easy definition. However, in Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law (6th
ed.) by Paul L. Davies and Published Sweet and Maxwell, the learned author
states at page 323 that “debentures are a type of transferable security whereby
a company can raise finance in the form of loan capital instead of share
capital”<o:p></o:p>Under
Order 27 of the Rules of Court, <o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Appointment of
receiver<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;The Court may appoint a
receiver by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the
Court to be just or convenient to do so and the order may be made either
unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just.<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;Any party to a cause or
matter may apply to the Court for the appointment of a receiver.<o:p></o:p>Thus,
under Order 27 an application for the appointment of receiver may be made by
any party to a cause or matter pending before the court but the court may only
grant the application if it appears to the Court to be just or convenient to do
so. Hence it cannot be argued that where a party seeks to enforce a security in
the nature of a debenture, by the appointment of a receiver, an application may
only be brought if a debenture holder’s action has been instituted. The grant
or refusal of an application under Order 27 of </main>