Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The Applicant is inviting this Court to issue its Supervisory Powers over the Respondent by compelling it to accept all audited annual financial statements signed in the name of firms appointed as auditors in accordance with regulations 33 and 54 of LI 1728. The Court is further invited to quash the directive of the respondent as published in the Peoples Daily Graphic edition of Tuesday 10th March 2015 as well as the circular issued by the Respondent on 19th February, 2015 for lacking authority to issue same.
The facts of case that have culminated in this application, are that the applicant herein in its efforts to promote International Accounting and Auditing Standards in Ghana issued a notice to all Professional Accountants to comply with it.
The applicants officially announced the International Standards on Auditing in January, 2012. The two methods that were introduced were that all Auditors were to apply the International Standards of Auditing in Financial Statements made on behalf of their clients for the year ending 31st December, 2012. And that an audit report must state the name and practising certificate number of the responsible individual who was in charge of the audit and must be name.
It must also state the name and licence number of the firm and must be dated.
The Auditors complied with the directives issued by the Applicants but did not follow directives of the Respondents.
The auditors who complied with the directives issued by the applicants had the financial statements submitted on behalf of their clients rejected by the Respondent.
The Respondent also gave different interpretation to Section 134 (2) of the Companies Act, Act 179 and gave counter instructions to the auditors that audit report issued by an audit firm in Ghana must be signed in the personal name of the partner in charge of the audit on behalf of the firm.
It further stated that it would not accept any financial statement with an auditor’s report issued by an audit firm not signed in the name of the partner in charge of the audit on behalf of the audit firm.
The Respondent has filed a motion raising four (4) grounds upon which the applicant’s application should be dismissed.
The grounds are as follows: “a. Applicant/Respondents instance case discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Respondent/Applicant and therefore has been improperly sued.
b. Respondent/Applicant as an employee is an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission)i