IN RE BOB KWAME AND CO. LTD.; GYINGYI v. BERNARD AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF ESSIEM J.A.

The appellant has appealed against the refusal of the High Court (coram Lamptey J.A. sitting as an additional judge of the High Court) to grant him certain interim reliefs he sought from the court.

The appellant had commenced proceedings in that court by an originating motion on notice under relevant sections of the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 197), seeking a number of reliefs. The motion was supported by a 45-paragraph affidavit in which he made a number of allegations of misconduct and mismanagement in connection with the affairs of Bob Kwame and Co. Ltd. against the first respondent. It was three days after filing the originating motion on [p.89] notice that he applied to the High Court for an order of interim injunction, interim preservation of property and the appointment of a receiver and manager. The full prayer was for an order of:

“(a) interim injunction restraining the first respondent from dealing with the company’s affairs, operating its various accounts or interfering with the company and its operations pending the determination of the application herein;

(b) an order of interim preservation of the estate and properties movable, immovable, fixed and otherwise of Bob Kwame and Co. Ltd. pending the determination of the application herein; and

(c) an order appointing a receiver and manager to take over and manage the affairs and business of Bob Kwame and Co. Ltd. pending the hearing and determination of the application herein ; and

(d) an order upon the first respondent to file within a time to be appointed by the court an account of all moneys accrued due to the said company and in his possession since 31 July 1987 and further to pay to the receiver and manager such sums as may be found due on such account. And for such further or other orders as this honourable court may seem meet”

This application for interim reliefs pending the determination of the originating motion was, needless to say, accompanied by an affidavit in which the appellant also relied on the affidavit in support of the originating motion.

In his two affidavits in opposition to both the originating motion on notice and the application for the interim reliefs, the first respondent was not found wanting in levelling counter-accusations of misconduct and mismanagement against the appellant. The affidavit evidence before the court discloses that the parties are shareholders in Bob Kwame and Co. Ltd. The appellant on his own showing is the minority sh