Company Law (90)
HELD:
"As a start-off, Section 588(1)(a) of the CAMA, 2020 provides in unequivocal terms:
HELD:
"It is pertinent to state that the question of the existence of a company resolution is not a matter for inferential deduction.
HELD:
"It is pertinent to state that at all times material to this matter, the applicable law is the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990; so, it is to its provisions that we would beam our focus in determining this matter.
HELD:
"It is apropos to deal with the position of the receivers/managers in relation to the parties.
HELD:
"The doctrine of lifting a corporate veil has its origin in common law and it has been used for the cause of justice by the Court where it becomes expedient to expose individuals hiding behind corporate entity.
HELD:
"The doctrine of lifting the corporate veil has been utilised by the Courts when it becomes necessary to expose the individual hiding behind the corporate entity for the purpose of doing justice.
HELD:
"It is not correct that a company carrying a business without having at least two members would have the company taken non-existent or illegal.
HELD:
"Of note is that the judgment of Okorowo J., is not a dissolution order within the purview of the provisions of Section 454(1) of the Company and Allied Matters Act.(CAMA). Section 454 of the Companies and Allied Matter Act provides:
HELD:
"Section 422 (9) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap C20 LFN 2004, now, Section 585 (9) of CAMA, 2020, which is the main crust of the contention of the appellant's issue one, provides that: