GH - SPEEDLINE STEVEDORING CO. LTD. v. GABRIEL DANIEL

ARYEETEY, J.A.

A background to this appeal is as follows: On 7th May, 1997, in a civil case number Misc.768/97, J. K. Dolphyne v. S. E. A. Brenya and Gladys Dede Adjetey, the High Court made orders for Interim Injunction and for the appointment of Receiver and Manager. After the High Court had given final judgment in the case it ordered the two Receivers and Managers to hand over their stewardship to two others. The order as drawn and signed by the trial judge and the registrar of the court. It reads:—

“ORDER FOR HANDING OVER

WHEREAS the above-named case is pending before this Honourable Court for hearing and determination:

AND WHEREAS at the trial held on the 19th day of January, 2001 it was ordered that an Order to HAND OVER be made:

AND UPON HEARING DR. DANIELS Esq.,

Counsel for and on behalf of the 2nd defendant and the Company herein: AND DR. TWUM Esq., Counsel for and on behalf of the 2nd defendant and the Company herein:

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that MR. ANTONIO CASTRO BARCON and MR. J. K. DOLPHYNE should take over the management of the Company from the RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS. The Receivers and Managers will however, continue to sign the company’s cheques, and notify the two named persons up to the end of January, 2001. With effect from 1/2/2001, these two persons Dolphyne and Antonio will be the signatories to the Company’s cheques. This order is to be drawn up by the Registrar and signed by the judge himself and copies sent to all the appropriate agencies including the banks with which the company does business. Ordered accordingly.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL

OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

ACCRA THIS 19TH DAY OF

JANUARY, 2001.

CHIEF REGISTRAR”

Upon Certiorari application to the Supreme Court the concluding part of its ruling reads: “For a High Court can appoint receivers and managers to manage the affairs of the company but the Court cannot, after revoking their appointment, purport to appoint directors and determine which particular directors should sign the cheques of the company. The Code does not give the High Court such jurisdiction. Hence, our unanimous decision quashing the judgment and orders of the High Court dated 12th May 2000 and 19th January 2001”. The next step taken against the two receivers and managers was the issue of writ against them for the following reliefs: “1. The sum of ¢2,617,408,000 being monies belonging to the plaintiff, which was misappropriated by defendants in the course of their duty as Recei