The High Court found the removal and share forfeiture of a petitioner in a company were unlawful, declared the transaction void, and ordered rectification of the register.
The forfeiture of the respondent's shares and her removal as director were invalid due to lack of proper notice for board meetings and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The call for payment of 75% of nominal share value was unlawful. The Commercial Division had jurisdiction over the defamation claim as it arose from the same transaction, but the award for defamation was set aside due to failure to sit with assessors as required by law. The respondent's claim for reimbursement of expenses was reversed for lack of board authorization. The appellant's counterclaim was dismissed as it w…
The respondent was not served with notice to attend the board meeting, rendering the meeting and subsequent resolutions invalid. The call for payment of 75% of share value was unlawful under Regulation 11 of Table A. Forfeiture of shares and removal of the respondent as director were irregular and invalid. The Commercial Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate defamation arising from commercial disputes, but the trial judge erred by not sitting with assessors as required by the Newspapers Act. The appellant's counterclaim was not considered as it was omitted from the amended written statement of…