Inherent court power in misfeasance proceedings supports summoning company directors and auditors to give evidence on oath.

In winding up-related misfeasance proceedings, the court's procedural and inherent powers extend to requiring directors and the auditor, as persons best placed to explain company affairs, to appear in open court and give evidence on oath where no statutory or constitutional bar exists. The distinction between private examination for information and testimony during the trial was recognised, and the court treated the attendance order as a valid incident of its adjudicatory function. An interlocutory order of this kind was not liable to interference merely because fuller reasons were deferred until final disposal, and the challenge to the sufficiency of reasons therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court had power, in misfeasance proceedings arising out of winding up, to require directors and the auditor of the company to appear and give evidence on oath; (ii) Whether the order was invalid for want of detailed reasons and therefore called for interference at the interlocutory stage.

Issue (i): Whether the court had power, in misfeasance proceedings arising out of winding up, to require directors and the auditor of the company to appear and give evidence on oath.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the scope of the court's procedural and inherent powers in company winding up and misfeasance proceedings. The provisions governing winding up and related appeals did not exclude a court's ability to call persons who were parties to the proceedings when their evidence was necessary for a fair and effective adjudication. The court distinguished between summoning a person for private examination for information and requiring a party to attend in open court to give evidence during the trial. It held that, absent any statutory or constitutional bar, the court retained an inherent power, as an incident of its adjudicatory function, to compel attendance and testimony from persons best able to explain the company affairs.

Conclusion: The court held that it did have power to summon the directors and the auditor to give evidence on oath, and this objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order was invalid for want of detailed reasons and therefore called for interference at the interlocutory stage.

Analysis: The order under challenge briefly stated the grounds for requiring the testimony and expressly deferred fuller reasons until the final order, on the footing that detailed discussion at that stage might embarrass the parties during the remainder of the trial. The court treated the complaint as one going to the propriety of interference with an interlocutory order rather than to the existence of appellate jurisdiction. It held that the reasons given were sufficient in the circumstances and that no interference was warranted before final disposal of the misfeasance proceedings.

Conclusion: The court rejected the challenge to the adequacy of reasons and declined to interfere with the interlocutory order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full. The impugned order directing the specified directors and the auditor to give evidence on oath was upheld, and the interlocutory challenge was dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In winding up-related misfeasance proceedings, a court may, in the exercise of its inherent judicial power and in the interests of justice, require parties who are best placed to explain the company affairs to appear and give evidence on oath, and an interlocutory order made for that purpose will not be interfered with merely because fuller reasons are deferred until final disposal.

---