AKAKPO v. SOLI AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.

These proceedings are brought before me by way of a case stated under section 24 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1961 (Act 38). The case is stated by the arbitrator appointed to go into the case arising out of a partnership dispute which was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants. The question of law arising for determination is whether in accordance with section 39 (7) of the Incorporated Private Partnerships Act, 1962 (Act 152), the second defendant, Mr. E. K. Narter-Olaga and the third defendant, Miss Genoveva Esther Marais, ceased to be partners in the Express Packing and Service Company as from 18 February 1966 or whether they remained partners in that company after that date.

There is no dispute that before 18 February 1966, all the parties to the action were partners in the company. At the end of 1966, one Mr. Soli, who is the husband of the first defendant but who was not a partner in the company, purported to dismiss the plaintiff from the company. Presumably Mr. Soli took this action because he thought he had such right conferred upon him by the fact that he had provided some of the funds for setting up of the company.

[p.269]

But in January 1967, the irregularity in the purported dismissal was pointed out by the second defendant to him and the plaintiff was reinstated. I must confess that I am surprised at the open exercise of power by Mr. Soli in the company's affairs which the partners permitted. After all he was not one of them. And the running of a partnership business is a matter for the partners. However, Mr. Soli's interference with the company's affairs is not the issue before me, I therefore refrain from further comment on him. Before the plaintiff's purported dismissal one Mr. Lindsay had been employed as an auditor-secretary to the company. And disputes had flared up between him and the plaintiff. These disputes continued after the plaintiff's re-instatement. The plaintiff, therefore sought an order from the court directing the defendants as partners of the company to submit themselves to arbitration as appears in the partnership agreement and to restrain the partners from changing the system of administration of the partnership business as agreed between the parties or from doing any act other than what the partners have agreed upon until any matters or disputes in the partnership business had been determined at an arbitration. The plaintiffs' originating summons was filed on 18 January 1967. The a