BERTHA ANSAH-DJAN VS PRYCE KOJO THOMPSON & ANOR

ASIEDU JSC: -

INTRODUCTION:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 2nd day of July 2020. In the said judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial High Court delivered on the 25th November 2016 in favour of the Defendants/Respondents/Respondents hereafter referred to as the Defendants.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal against the said judgment on the 12th August 2020. FACTS: The facts of this case are that the Plaintiff/Appellant and the 1st Defendant herein are friends.

The Plaintiff claims that she formed a transport Company known as Pergah Transport Company Limited in 1999 and was the sole shareholder of the Company.

In 2004, the Plaintiff transferred seventy percent of the total shares of the Company valued GH₵24, 500. 00 to the 1st Defendant.

An agreement, exhibit ‘A’ herein, was executed by the parties in respect of the share transfer.

Exhibit ‘A’ was subsequently presented to the 2nd Defendant which registered it accordingly.

The Plaintiff says that, after waiting for a long while, the 1st Defendant failed to pay for the value of the shares transferred to him and for that reason, the Plaintiff repudiated the share transfer agreement by writing exhibit‘C’ to that effect.

The Plaintiff later issued the writ in the instant matter.

The 1st Defendant, on the other hand, says that the idea to set up the transport Company was mooted by him but because he was then working as the Managing Director of a Bank, he caused the Plaintiff to register Pergah Transport Company Limited.

The 1st Defendant says that as a result, he financed the formation of the Company with his own resources and also provided the start-up capital for the Company.

The 1st Defendant also procured loans for the running of the Company.

The 1st Defendant alleges that whatever shares that the Plaintiff held at the formation of the Company was held by the Plaintiff in trust for the 1st Defendant.

According to the 1st Defendant, two out of the three Directors of the Company were nominated by him.

The 1st Defendant maintained that he was the owner of the Company but later decided to give the Plaintiff thirty percent of the shareholding in the Company as shown in exhibit ‘A’, the share transfer agreement.

The Plaintiff’s writ, issued on the 21st November 2011 against the Defendants asked for: (a). A declaration that