The High Court held that the second defendant was not proved to be a director or shareholder, but a settlement deed allotted him 30 acres; 19 acres reverted to the plaintiff.
The petitioner was unfairly prejudiced by being sidelined from management and the continued use of the company's name by the 1st respondent for private business, justifying a buyout order under Section 233(1) of the Companies Act.
The High Court recorded a consent settlement in a company dispute over directorship, marking the petition as settled and adopting the deed as its order.
The petitioner, as administrator of the estate of a deceased shareholder, is not a member but is a person to whom shares have been transferred by operation of law and thus has locus standi under section 233(2) of the Companies Act to petition for unfair prejudice. The petitioner is a director of the 2nd respondent company as per the unchallenged official search report from the Registrar of Companies. Both the petitioner and the 1st respondent, as directors, have committed unfair and prejudicial practices against each other and the company by acting unilaterally and failing to cooperate. There…
Review application partly allowed after the Court found a manifest record error on applicants’ directorship, but rejected complaints about non-joinder.
The Court of Appeal reviewed its earlier decision, correcting an erroneous finding that certain applicants were directors, but upheld its treatment of non-joinder objections.