Sackey Vrs Sanyo Electric and Another [2008] GHASC 8 (12 November 2008)

Sackey Vrs Sanyo Electric and Another [2008] GHASC 8 (12 November 2008)

The plaintiff was not duly appointed as director in accordance with the Companies Code, and any remuneration for services rendered as director must be determined by ordinary resolution of the company. The trial court's award on quantum meruit was unlawful as it contravened section 194 of the Companies Code.

Citation
[2008] GHASC 8
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Daniel Sackey Quarcoopome; 1st Defendant/respondent: Sanyo Electric Trading; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Ghana Sanyo Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Director Appointment, Quantum Meruit, Remuneration of Directors, Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Company Law Contract Law Director Appointment Quantum Meruit Remuneration of Directors Breach of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Sackey Quarcoopome

Plaintiff/appellant

Sanyo Electric Trading

1st Defendant/respondent

Ghana Sanyo Company Limited

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was duly appointed as a director of the company under the Companies Code, 1963, Act 179
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to remuneration for services rendered as director on a quantum meruit basis
  3. 3 Whether the award of remuneration by the trial court was lawful under section 194 of the Companies Code

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not duly appointed as director in accordance with the Companies Code, and any remuneration for services rendered as director must be determined by ordinary resolution of the company. The trial court's award on quantum meruit was unlawful as it contravened section 194 of the Companies Code.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed