NII AMANOR DODOO & THE BEIGE BANK v. MICHAEL NYINAKU & 12 ORS
July 30, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
- Banking and Finance Law
July 30, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The 2nd to 6th and 9th Defendants applied to strike out a suit initiated by the Receiver of The Beige Bank, contending that the writ was a nullity because the Receiver lacked capacity to sue in his personal name. The Receiver alleged unlawful transactions by the 1st Defendant and others and sought declarations, accounting, rescission, and recovery of large sums. The Bank was later joined as 2nd Plaintiff. Respondents argued that capacity could not be raised at this stage and that the Receiver, having succeeded to members’ powers, could sue as a member under section 210 of the Companies Act. The court held that lack of capacity may be raised preliminarily as a point of law, that misinvoking original rather than inherent jurisdiction was inconsequential, and that under Act 179 and Act 930 a receiver must sue in the company’s name. The original writ was void and joinder could not cure the defect, so the suit was struck out without costs.
JUDGMENT
This is an application by the 2nd to 6th and 9th Defendants/Applicants herein, hereafter referred to as "Applicants", invoking the original jurisdiction of this court for an order to strike out the instant suit on the basis that it was commenced by a person that is the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent, without the requisite capacity.
The facts of the case as can be gleaned from the records reveal that the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent, as Receiver of The Beige Bank, (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank/2nd Plaintiff/Respondent") identified a number of transactions executed by the Defendants to the suit that he alleges are unlawful. These include loans, advances and the acquisition of assets using the funds of the Bank made by the 1st Defendant for his and the benefit of the other Defendants. In this light, on June 14, 2019, the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent caused a Writ of Summons and a Statement of Claim to be issued against the Defendants. On June 20, 2019 upon application by the Bank and pursuant to an order of the court granting same, the Bank was joined to the suit as 2nd Plaintiff. The plaintiffs (herein referred to collectively as "Respondents") claimed the following reliefs per the amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim:
"a. A declaration that 1st Defendant has breached his duties as director of 2nd Plaintiff and is liable for all the losses to 2nd Plaintiff occasioned by the breaches;
b. A declaration that the various transactions described in the statement of claim between 2nd Plaintiff and Defendants are unlawful;
c. An order for 1st Defendant to account and refund to Plaintiffs for any profit resulting from property transactions with or through 12th Defendant, and for a further order rescinding all other transactions entered into between 2nd Plaintiff and Defendants;
d. Order of recovery jointly and severally against the respective Defendants of the following sum:
i. 1st and 2nd defendants, GH¢17,500,000
ii. 1st and 3rd Defendants, GH¢22,000,000
iii. 1st and 4th Defendants, GH¢18,500,000
iv. 1st and 5th Defendants, GH¢10,978,660.03
v. 1st and 6th Defendants, GH¢7,000,000
vi. 1st and 7th Defendants, GH¢29,000,000
vii. 1st and 8th Defendants, GH¢10,000,000
viii. 1st and 9th Defendants, GH¢575,321,154.99
ix. 1st and 10th Defendants, GH€46,040,347.51
x. 1st and 11th Defendants, GH€1,100,000
xi. 1st and 12th Defendants, GH€19,156,374.91 and
xii. 1st and 13th Defendants, GH¢597,255,052.91
e. An order for the recovery from 1st Defe