FELIX AMPADU ASOMANING VRS DOMINIC ANANE

BACKGROUND:

This is an interlocutory appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, dated the 4th day of July 2023 refusing the Defendant/Applicants’ (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) application seeking to subpoena the Registrar of Companies and the Bank of Africa.

The Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) in the said action sued the Appellant for recovery of the sum of GHC359,024.00 being the cumulative indebtedness of the Appellant to the Respondent for the supply of goods, being

Glyphosate and Paraquate. According to the Respondent, both parties had been doing business together since 2014 and the supply of the goods to the Appellant which he was liable to pay for was kept on a running account.

The essence of the Appellants’ defence to the action was that he did not personally have dealings with the Respondent for the sale and purchase of the goods, and that instead, it was a company called “Nadnic Enterprise Limited” that had dealings with the Respondent. The Defendant admitted that he was the Managing Director of the said company, however counters that he is not personally liable to the Respondent for paying for the goods; in other words, according to him, the Respondent sold the goods to the company and not him, and therefore the company (and not him) is liable to pay for the goods. The Appellant, Dominic Anane, seeks to stand tall on the foundational principle of the separateness of corporate personality to avoid an adverse judgment under a writ directed at him personally.

FACTS:

The facts and contentions pleaded by the Appellant in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of his Statement of Defence filed on 19th May 2021 are significant to the precise form and structure that he intends his defence to the action to take. He pleads in those four paragraphs as follows:

“5 The Defendant further avers that Nadnic Enterprise Limited is a Limited Liability Company and as Managing Director, he only acted for and on behalf of the company.

6 The Defendant states that he cannot be held liable or the liabilities of Nadnic Enterprise Limited.

7 The Defendant further states that all the payments cheques were issued in the name of Nadnic Enterprise Limited.

8 The Defendant therefore says that the Plaintiff is not entitled to his claims against him.”

These became issues in controversy arising out of the pleadings, and on the Application of Directions being hea