Quarcoompome Vrs Sanyo electric trading co l.t.d And Another ( H1/77/06) [2007] GHACA 16 (01 March 2007);
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL - ACCRA
CORAM - AKAMBA, JA [PRESIDING]
KANYOKE, JA
MARFUL-SAU, JA
H1/77/06
1ST MARCH, 2007
DANIEL SACKEY QUARCOOPOME … PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
V E R S U S
1. SANYO ELECTRIC TRADING CO. LTD. }
… DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
2. GHANA SANYO COMPANY LIMITED }
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
KANYOKE, J.A - I have had the opportunity to read earlier on the lead judgment of my brother Marful Sau J.A. I agree with the conclusion reached by him that the appeal should and is accordingly allowed. The learned trial judge clearly went wrong in law in granting the alternative relief for “adequate remuneration and compensation for services rendered to the defendants from 1974 to 2001 as director on the board of the 2nd defendant’s company.”
The award of three hundred and fifty million cedis (¢350,000,000.00) on quantum meriut was in clear contravention of Section 194 of the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179). The quantum meriut maxim is an equitable remedy and since equity follows the law and not the other way round, that maxim could not override the clear and unambiguous provisions of S. 194 of Act 174. That award is therefore unlawful and unjustified and must and is therefore set aside. For the same reason the appeal by the Plaintiff/Respondent for variation of the learned trial judge’s judgment is dismissed.
S.E. KANYOKE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
~eb~
