Oppression and mismanagement arise when company assets are sold without valid notice, board approval, or shareholder-director participation.

Disposal of a company's assets without proper notice, lawful board approval, or meaningful participation of a shareholder-director can amount to oppression and mismanagement. The text states that continuing interference with shareholders' and directors' rights may prevent limitation from barring the challenge where the wrongful deprivation persists. It also notes that service by certificate of posting was insufficient in the circumstances to prove notice of board meetings, so cessation of directorship could not follow. On that basis, the sale of assets was treated as invalid corporate action, and the petition succeeded with investigation into the company's affairs directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to oppression and mismanagement; (ii) Whether the challenge to the sale of assets and the appointment of the director was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether the respondent's alleged absence from three board meetings caused cessation of directorship; (iv) Whether the sale of the company's assets was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to oppression and mismanagement.

Analysis: The petitioners were shown to have a substantial shareholding and a continuing interest in the management of the company. The disposal of the company's assets was carried out without proper notice to a shareholder-director, without a validly convened board process, and without meaningful participation of the petitioners. The circumstances also showed exclusion of the petitioners from material decisions affecting the company's assets and affairs.

Conclusion: The conduct amounted to oppression and mismanagement in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the sale of assets and the appointment of the director was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The impugned acts were treated as continuing in nature because the petitioners' rights as shareholders and directors were alleged to have been persistently affected. In such a situation, limitation did not run as a complete bar, and the petition could not be rejected merely on the ground of delay. The long lapse of time did not extinguish the grievance where the wrongful deprivation continued.

Conclusion: The petition was not barred by limitation in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent's alleged absence from three board meetings caused cessation of directorship.

Analysis: Service of notice only by certificate of posting was found insufficient in the strained factual setting of the parties, particularly where important decisions were proposed to be taken. The alleged notices were not treated as reliable proof of service, and the absence from meetings was not established as intentional or duly notified. Without valid service, the statutory consequence of cessation of office could not follow.

Conclusion: The directorship did not cease and the petitioner continued to remain a director in law.

Issue (iv): Whether the sale of the company's assets was valid.

Analysis: The sale was effected without a valid board resolution supported by proper notice to all concerned directors, and the petitioner's participation as a director was wrongly excluded. The tribunal found that the transfers of movable and immovable assets were made in breach of corporate procedure and without lawful corporate approval. The sale could not therefore be treated as a valid act of the company.

Conclusion: The sale of assets was invalid and was held against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the respondents were found guilty of oppression and mismanagement, and investigation into the company's affairs from 8 September 2008 was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company's assets are disposed of without valid notice, lawful board approval, or genuine participation of a shareholder-director, the conduct constitutes oppression and mismanagement, and continuing deprivation of rights prevents limitation from defeating the petition.

---