However, the COA did find that the High Court had wrongly concluded that Mr Karim was the beneficial owner of his wife’s shares in the company.Giving the COA’s unanimous decision Ms Justice Costello said that the couple conducted or purported to conduct the affairs of the company in a manner oppressive of the applicant, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Karim was neither a director nor a shareholder.
It was common case between the parties that they could not work together in the future and that the company ought not to be wound up, she said. The fact that she was the majority shareholder did not preclude the court from so ordering, Ms Justice Costello said. The High Court had also exercised its discretion in relation to the costs of the motions before him in accordance with established principles and his findings.
The COA was allowing Ms Sultana’s appeal on this point and directed the applicant pay Ms Sultana in respect of his purchase of her shares in the company.