22

Read Comments Comments (22)

• VAGINA SMELLS TOO BAD 2 days ago

  WHO CARES? LETS THINK PLS

  WHO CARES? LETS THINK PLS

  reply
• Reap what you sow 2 days ago

  You guys should hold back your private matters private. Sorry for your divorce however, there is no need to cry out louder for public sympathy

  You guys should hold back your private matters private. Sorry for your divorce however, there is no need to cry out louder for public sympathy

  reply
• Kelvin 2 days ago

  Anyone can be part of owners in a company as soon as the person buys a share in that company. So give us a break.

  Anyone can be part of owners in a company as soon as the person buys a share in that company. So give us a break.

  reply
• No nails 2 days ago

  Hahahaha sore loser

  Hahahaha sore loser

  reply
• Jesus saves 2 days ago

  You know nothing about law

  You know nothing about law

  reply
• Ghanaian 2 days ago

  Rich solve this peacefully before it gets out of hand

  Rich solve this peacefully before it gets out of hand

  reply
• Diasempe George 2 days ago

  This is what Joana Quaye is saying for herself now after judgment has been given in the divorce matter. Did she give this evidence during the hearing in the divorce matter ? If not then why ?
  Ghanaweb why have you not publi ...
  read full comment

  This is what Joana Quaye is saying for herself now after judgment has been given in the divorce matter. Did she give this evidence during the hearing in the divorce matter ? If not then why ?
  Ghanaweb why have you not published the defence of Richard in response to these evidence whether new or old ?
  What did the judgment say in respect of this evidence ? Your publications in respect of this matter is one-sided and biased towards Joana. Please note that Joana cannot introduce new evidence at the appeal which was available upon a diligent search after judgment has been given.
  Please publish the whole judgment for all to see.
  Court filings are processes filed by the parties, that is wife or husband, which upon trial or hearing has to be proved by evidence and accepted as proved in the judgment for the court to rely on it and apply the law. If court filings are not proved during hearing and accepted as proved in the judgment it would not have any effect of the sharing of marital property. Many times wife or husband may make a claim in the court filings but fail to prove it by evidence, this claim would therefore have no effect of the judgment.

  reply
• Macarious 2 days ago

  Money talks and bullshit walks. Richard Quaye stand firm and don't give in to the embittered mercenaries who are trying their utmost best to shame men. They just want to as it were, "show you" to prove their evil feminist poi ...
  read full comment

  Money talks and bullshit walks. Richard Quaye stand firm and don't give in to the embittered mercenaries who are trying their utmost best to shame men. They just want to as it were, "show you" to prove their evil feminist point against men. You are fighting a good fight on behalf of all men who have been and will continue to be exploited by greedy disappointed women who want to harvest where they have not sown. Right on.

  reply
• Johnny 2 days ago

  It seems you know the law more than those senior lawyers and Joana's lawyer who have called for an appeal. Are you aware the first ruling could be wrong?

  It seems you know the law more than those senior lawyers and Joana's lawyer who have called for an appeal. Are you aware the first ruling could be wrong?

  reply
• Bobby Stones 2 days ago

  The first ruling was definitely wrong and influence by issues or factors we don't know. Going by what the story is telling us, she definitely has shares in his business.

  The first ruling was definitely wrong and influence by issues or factors we don't know. Going by what the story is telling us, she definitely has shares in his business.

  reply
• Never use dishonest BEEDEG for your shipping 2 days ago

  Heartless people

  Heartless people

  reply
• Kwei 2 days ago

  The first court ruling wad on marriage assert, this is a company shareholder stake, once it's confirmed. I will advice her to sell her stake.

  The first court ruling wad on marriage assert, this is a company shareholder stake, once it's confirmed. I will advice her to sell her stake.

  reply
• Diasempe George 2 days ago

  She is not a shareholder currently. She seems to be saying that her husband changed the shareholding without her knowledge and consent. She should have raised this argument and prove that her 100,000 shares was stolen or take ...
  read full comment

  She is not a shareholder currently. She seems to be saying that her husband changed the shareholding without her knowledge and consent. She should have raised this argument and prove that her 100,000 shares was stolen or taken away from her. If proved the judge would make the necessary orders and restore her shares. If not proved the judge would dismiss this claim and would find that she is not a shareholder and apply the law, she would not get any share of the company.
  
  If she did not state that her shares were stolen or taken away without her consent and lead evidence to prove same during the trial at the High Court she cannot introduce this evidence at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal rarely take new evidence especially when the evidence was available at the time trial and could have been discovered upon diligent search. But if this piece of evidence was given but the High Court overuled it then the Court of Appeal would look at it to see whether the High Court was wrong or right. If the Court of Appeal finds the High Court wrong it would restore her 100,000 shares.
  Her claim that other companies or businesses were acquired the money from the company would have to be proved at the High Court first before the Court of Appeal would consider it. It cannot be introduced by new evidence at the Appeal.
  Ghanaweb should publish the judgment for all to see.

  reply
• Django 2 days ago

  Masa are you a lawyer?? You’re writing a whole lot of rubbish. Don’t watch too much crime movies

  Masa are you a lawyer?? You’re writing a whole lot of rubbish. Don’t watch too much crime movies

  reply
• Diasempe George 2 days ago

  Yes I am a lawyer. What i have stated is the position of the law. Follow the case to the end and see what happens.

  Yes I am a lawyer. What i have stated is the position of the law. Follow the case to the end and see what happens.

  reply
• Rasta 1 day ago

  You are 100% right. That is the position of the law. The idiots in the country wants to use emotions to change the law. In court, we talk law not emotions.
  
  Why didn't she submit the evidence during the high court hearing? ...
  read full comment

  You are 100% right. That is the position of the law. The idiots in the country wants to use emotions to change the law. In court, we talk law not emotions.
  
  Why didn't she submit the evidence during the high court hearing?
  
  Why is not sending the company to court & make her claims per the high court judge directives? Because a company is a legal entity on its own & company issues are dealt with at commercial court not divorce court.
  
  She is going to lose again.

  reply
• Clynns 2 days ago

  Bills micro what what is a criminal entity they give loan and collect 100% interest they are criminals and it's God who is beginning to let Ghanaians know their criminology..

  Bills micro what what is a criminal entity they give loan and collect 100% interest they are criminals and it's God who is beginning to let Ghanaians know their criminology..

  reply
• Macarious 2 days ago

  @ Clynns. Hey shut up. Nobody forced you to go and take a loan from Bills Micro credit. If you did not like their terms, why did you take their loan only to return their kind service with ungrateful abuse. There are many oth ...
  read full comment

  @ Clynns. Hey shut up. Nobody forced you to go and take a loan from Bills Micro credit. If you did not like their terms, why did you take their loan only to return their kind service with ungrateful abuse. There are many other micro credit companies around town. Why didn't you go to any of them? Shameless idiot.

  reply
• Kofi Amankwa 2 days ago

  Why don't u settle this matter privately, and go on with your marriage, the devil is at hand ,don't allow

  Why don't u settle this matter privately, and go on with your marriage, the devil is at hand ,don't allow

  reply
• Gra 2 days ago

  Go to the commercial court.. not the divorce court. The divorce court was right in its decision. The commercial courts are the to settle business related issues, such as this

  Go to the commercial court.. not the divorce court. The divorce court was right in its decision. The commercial courts are the to settle business related issues, such as this

  reply
• Rasta 1 day ago

  Why didn't she file all these evidence during the first substantive proceedings at the high court?
  
  Per the so called fresh evidence, she has 10% & Nii has 90%. Does 10% & 90% amount to 50-50 profit share that she was dema ...
  read full comment

  Why didn't she file all these evidence during the first substantive proceedings at the high court?
  
  Per the so called fresh evidence, she has 10% & Nii has 90%. Does 10% & 90% amount to 50-50 profit share that she was demanding? Idiot!!!
  
  The high court judge was clear in his judgement that if she thinks that she has interest in the company, she should send the company to court & make her claims, because a company is a legal entity on its own and separate from divorce. So why is she making noise and appealing against the divorce ruling? She will at the appeal.
  
  She will ose again because appeal court does not look at fresh evidence which was in the appeallant's control. She should have brought all these evidence during the first hearing.
  
  Again, she will lose again because the directive was clear. "Send the company to court and make your claims. Don't mix the 2 issues together. But Joan wants to mix the 2 issues together, which is wrong.
  
  Joan advice yourself and do the right thing in court and stop the concert.

  reply
• Clement 12 hours ago

  The document raises serious corporate governance and shareholder rights concerns regarding the apparent removal of an original 10% shareholder and director without clear evidence of notice, consent, or due process.
  
  Under G ...
  read full comment

  The document raises serious corporate governance and shareholder rights concerns regarding the apparent removal of an original 10% shareholder and director without clear evidence of notice, consent, or due process.
  
  Under Ghanaian company law, a shareholder’s ownership interest constitutes a legal property right and cannot ordinarily be extinguished, diluted, or transferred without lawful authorization, proper documentation, and compliance with the company’s constitution and the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992).
  
  If it is established that the shareholder was removed as a director or that her shares were transferred during or after marital proceedings without her knowledge, approval, executed transfer instruments, or valid corporate resolutions, such actions may potentially be challenged on grounds including:
  • breach of fiduciary duty,
  • oppression of minority shareholder rights,
  • unauthorized share transfer,
  • procedural irregularity,
  • fraud or misrepresentation.
  
  Additionally, the removal of a director does not automatically terminate that person’s shareholder rights or beneficial ownership interest unless a lawful share transfer process has been completed and properly recorded.
  
  Particularly concerning would be any allegation that public officials or officers within the Registrar of Companies or any related public institution knowingly facilitated or processed transfers without the knowledge, authorization, or legally executed consent of the affected shareholder. If proven, such conduct could amount to serious corporate fraud, conspiracy, abuse of office, falsification of corporate records, or corruption under Ghanaian law, with potential civil and criminal consequences for all parties involved.
  
  Any individual found to have participated in or benefited from fraudulent transfers or unlawful alteration of ownership records may face:
  • criminal investigation,
  • civil liability,
  • reversal of transactions,
  • disqualification from directorship,
  • financial penalties,
  • confiscation of unlawfully acquired benefits,
  • and possible imprisonment upon conviction.
  
  The matter therefore raises important legal questions requiring full examination of:
  • the company constitution,
  • shareholder agreements,
  • board and shareholder resolutions,
  • executed share transfer instruments,
  • Registrar of Companies filings,
  • beneficial ownership records,
  • and any court orders or divorce settlement documentation connected to the parties.
  
  Given the seriousness of the allegations, an independent legal and forensic corporate investigation may be necessary to determine whether the actions undertaken were lawful, properly authorized, and compliant with Ghanaian corporate and criminal law.

  reply