DAN FOSU POKU vs. OLIVER DURST & SPC TRNSPORT AND ENGINEERING [2020]DLCA9374

Date	2020-03-25
Suit No.	APPEAL NO.HI/34/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA9374

B.F. ACKAH-YENSU J.A (PRESIDING)

I. O. TANKO AMADU J.A

AMMA A. GAISIE J.A

FRANK ASAMOAH ESQ.

PATRICK POKU MABOAH ESQ.

KOFI SOMUAH ESQ

[2020]DLCA9374
																																						<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" >DAN FOSU POKU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OLIVER DURST &amp; SPC TRNSPORT AND
ENGINEERING&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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;line-height:normal;tab-stops:center 234.0pt;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">APPEAL
NO.HI/34/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
25TH MARCH, 2020<o:p></o:p>

FRANK ASAMOAH ESQ.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>B.F. ACKAH-YENSU J.A
(PRESIDING), I. O. TANKO AMADU J.A, AMMA A. GAISIE J.A<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="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:center 234.0pt left 309.0pt 327.0pt 342.75pt;
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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>TANKO AMADU J.A<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There are two substantive appeals arising
from the judgment of the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra, dated 17th
May 2018.&nbsp; In the two appeals aforesaid,
the Plaintiff/Appellant herein and the 2nd Defendant/Appellant have
in their respective appeals sought to impeach the judgment of the Trial High
Court and have sought the same relief that the said judgment be set aside on
the grounds set forth in the respective notices.&nbsp; The two appeals will be dealt with
compositely in this judgment. &nbsp;The two
Appellants hereinafter be referred to as 1st and 2nd
Appellant respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There is another appeal on the record which
arose from the ruling of the Trial High Court granting an order for stay of
execution of its judgment dated 17th May 2018.&nbsp; That appeal is at the instance of the 1st
Defendant/Appellant.&nbsp; For the avoidance
of doubt the said appeal is not the subject matter of this judgment not having
been referred to at all by counsel for the parties at the time the appeal
against the substantive judgment was heard.&nbsp;
Conceivably, parties in the substantive appeal did not find it necessary
to proceed with the said interlocutory appeal since the substantive was ready
for determination.<o:p></o:p>(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
At the Trial Court, the 1st
Appellant had instituted action against the 1st Defendant hereafter
referred to as the “Respondent” and
the 2nd Appellant on the 4th day of January, 2012.&nbsp;&nbsp; By an Amended Statement of Claim filed on
the 2nd day of July, 2013 the 1st Appellant claimed the
following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:49.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-49.5pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-13.5pt;line-height:
150%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
i.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“A declaration that the 1st
Defendant breached his fiduciary duties to the 2nd Defendant Company
when he took some equipment belonging to the Company and got Maha to stop
servicing of the machinery of the company, as well as unilaterally
appropriating the assets of the 2nd Defendant Company and keeping
s</main>