MULTI CONCEPT LIMITED v. LA NKWANTANANG MADINA MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY & ORS
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SENYO DZAMEFE JA PRESIDING
- P. BRIGHT MENSAH JA
- GEORGE KOOMSON JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
- Evidence Law
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per P. Bright Mensah JA with Senyo Dzamefe JA (Presiding) and George Koomson JA concurring, addressed an appeal by the La Nkwantanang-Madina Municipal Assembly against a High Court ruling in Multi Concept Ltd’s land-related dispute. Multi Concept Ltd had applied for an interlocutory injunction; the Assembly challenged the company’s capacity to sue and relied on Registrar-General search reports for “Multi Concept Company Ltd.” The High Court dismissed the capacity objection but adjourned the case sine die, directing statutory compliance. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the appeal properly before it despite non-service of Civil Form 2 on the respondent. Applying Companies Act, 2019 section 15 and Evidence Act provisions, it found Multi Concept Ltd’s certificates were conclusive evidence of capacity, the search reports were for a different entity, and capacity objections failed. It set aside the High Court’s compliance order as a jurisdictional error breaching audi alteram partem, and otherwise dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
BRIGHT MENSAH JA:
The 1st defendant/appellant herein being dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court Adenta-Accra delivered 26/11/2020 has launched the instant appeal on the grounds of appeal listed here below, challenging the rightness of the ruling of the lower court, that:
1. The trial court erred in law when it overruled the 1st defendant/
appellant’s preliminary legal objection on the capacity of the
plaintiff/respondent to sue despite sufficient evidence of lack of
capacity in the plaintiff.
2. The trial judge erred in law when she adjourned the matter sine die
and ordered the plaintiff to regularize its documentations in order to
comply with the mandatory relevant statutory requirements before proceeding with the case.
3. Further grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the Ruling.
See: pp 281-282 of the records of appeal [roa]
No additional ground of appeal was filed. We shall therefore limit our discourse to only the 2 grounds of appeal mentioned supra. As we go along, the status of the parties as plaintiff and defendants respectively, shall be maintained.
The events leading to the Ruling by the lower court were that the plaintiff had on 14/07/2020, filed an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, agents, etc from interfering with and/or carrying out activities on the plaintiff’s land upon the grounds contained in the supporting affidavit. Pursuant to being served with the process, the La Nkwatanang-Madina Municipal Assembly (1st defendant herein) filed a 31 – paragraph Affidavit In Opposition to the application and raised it in the said affidavit, the issue that the plaintiff is holding some fictitious documents allegedly executed by a dead man and that that cannot be a basis for ownership of the disputed land.
Following the filing of the affidavit in opposition, was the 1st defendant’s statement of defence filed 07/10/2020 in which it was also pleaded in paragraphs 28 and 29 thereof that the plaintiff has no cause of action and also that the plaintiff lacks the requisite legal capacity to sue the 1st defendant. In response to the 1st defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff lacks the legal capacity to sue, the plaintiff filed a supplementary affidavit in opposition, exhibiting certificate of incorporation and certificate to commence business, marked “MCL 11” and “MCL 12” respectively, to buttress the existence of the plaintiff company and its legal capacity to sue,