Beyond Salomon: Rethinking the Doctrine of Separate Legal Personality and Corporate Veil Lifting in Ghanaian Company Law
Keywords:
Separate legal personality; Corporate veil lifting; corporate governance; Salomon Principle; Corporate Accountability; concealment; evasion, purposive accountability modelAbstract
This article critically examines the doctrine of separate legal personality and the evolving principles governing corporate veil lifting within Ghanaian company law. Anchored on the landmark decision in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd, the study analyses the extent to which the traditional doctrine of corporate separateness remains adequate in addressing contemporary commercial realities, including economic crime, corporate group structures, beneficial ownership concealment, and regulatory evasion. Adopting a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, the article evaluates Ghana’s Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), judicial decisions, and comparative jurisprudence from the United Kingdom, South Africa, Rwanda, and the United States. The study argues that although separate legal personality remains indispensable for commercial certainty and investment, rigid adherence to the Salomon principle increasingly undermines accountability where corporate structures are abused. It further proposes a novel Purposive Accountability Model of Veil Lifting (PAMV) to guide judicial intervention and reconcile corporate autonomy with justice, transparency, creditor protection, responsible corporate governance, and emerging accountability concerns in modern commercial practice.
References
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22.
Gower LCB. Principles of Modern Company Law. 4th ed. London: Stevens & Sons; 1979. p. 112–116.
Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) (Ghana).
Morkor v Kuma (East Coast Fisheries Case) [1998–99] SCGLR 620.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935.
Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832.
Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd v IRC [1969] 1 WLR 1241.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415, paras 16-35.
Cheng TK. The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and US Corporate Veil Doctrines. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 2011;34(2):329-412.
Hansmann H, Kraakman R. The Essential Role of Organisational Law. Yale Law Journal. 2000;110:387-440.
Tuyisenge S. The Concept of Piercing Corporate Veil. 2022. pp.4-6.
Sjåfjell B, Mähönen J. Corporate Governance for Sustainability. Cambridge University Press; 2022. P.15-38; Blumberg PI. The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality. Oxford University Press; 1993. P.90-95.
Hutchinson T, Duncan N. Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research. Deakin Law Review. 2012;17(1):83-119.
Samuel G. An Introduction to Comparative Law Theory and Method. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2014. pp.52–58.
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22; Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34.
Gower LCB. Principles of Modern Company Law. 4th ed. London: Stevens & Sons; 1979. p.112-116; Easterbrook FH, Fischel DR. The Economic Structure of Corporate Law. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1991. p.41-62.
Blumberg PI. The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. p.89-98.
Muchlinski P. Multinational Enterprises and the Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. p.87-105, 467-490.
Vermeulen EPM. Beneficial ownership and control: a comparative study of regulatory approaches. OECD Corporate Governance Working Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. p.7-18, 27-35; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Corporate Governance Factbook 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. p.145-166
Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Beneficial Ownership and Transparency of Legal Persons: Guidance. Paris: FATF; 2023. p.9-22, 31-44.
Sjåfjell B, Mähönen J. Corporate Governance for Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p.15-38, 102-127.
ibid.
Duff PW. Personality in Roman Private Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1971: 21.
ibid.
Gower LCB. Principles of Modern Company Law. 4th ed. London: Stevens & Sons; 1979: 112.
ibid.
Moore M. A Temple Built on Faulty Foundations: Piercing the Corporate Veil and the Legacy of Salomon v Salomon. Journal of Business Law. 2006:180-203.
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22.
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619.
Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12.
Gower LCB. Principles of Modern Company Law. 4th ed. London: Stevens & Sons; 1979. p.112.
Morkor v Kuma (East Coast Fisheries Case) [1998–99] SCGLR 620.
Appenteng and Others v Bank of West Africa Ltd and Others [1961] GLR 81.
Thompson RB. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Is the Common Law the Problem? Connecticut Law Review. 2005;37:619-632.
Blumberg PI. The Law of Corporate Groups: Procedural Problems in the Law of Parent and Subsidiary Corporations. Boston: Little, Brown & Co; 1983. p.8-10.
Thompson RB. Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study. Cornell Law Review. 1991;76:1036–1074.
Kessow P. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Exploring Legal Implications and Corporate Accountability. LLM Dissertation. University of Cape Town; 2024:13; Dignam A, Lowry J. Company Law. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. p.31-35.
Easterbrook FH, Fischel DR. The Economic Structure of Corporate Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1991.
Morkor v Kuma (East Coast Fisheries Case) [1998–99] SCGLR 620.
Blumberg PI. The Law of Corporate Groups: Procedural Problems in the Law of Parent and Subsidiary Corporations. Boston: Little, Brown & Co; 1983: 10.
Bowstead W, Reynolds FMB. Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency. 22nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2021. para 8-001–8-004.
Munjal S. Company Law: Lifting of Corporate Veil. SSRN Working Paper. 2010:1-5.
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22.
Blumberg PI. The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. p. 21–45.
DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 (CA).
Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415.
Gower LCB, Davies PL, Worthington S. Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law. 10th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2016. p. 204–208; Ottolenghi S. From Peeping Behind the Corporate Veil to Ignoring It Completely. Modern Law Review. 1990;53(3):338–353.
Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC (HL) 90.
Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA).
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935.
Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 (Ch).
Paul L Davies and Sarah Worthington, Gower & Davies, Principles of Modern Company Law (9th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 214; see also Marc Moore, ‘A Temple Built on Faulty Foundations: Piercing the Corporate Veil and the Legacy of Salomon v Salomon’ [2006] JBL 180.
Hannigan B. Company Law. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. p. 63–89.
Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1969] 1 WLR 1241 (CA).
United States v Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co 142 F 247 (CCED Wis 1905).
Thompson RB. Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study. Cornell Law Review. 1991;76:1036–1074.
Morkor v Kuma (East Coast Fisheries Case) [1998–99] SCGLR 620; Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) (Ghana).
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22.
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619.
Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12.
Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), s 19.
Morkor v Kuma (East Coast Fisheries Case) [1998–99] SCGLR 620.
Appenteng and Others v Bank of West Africa Ltd and Others [1961] GLR 81.
Thompson RB. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Is the Common Law the Problem? Connecticut Law Review. 2005;37:619.
Cheng TK. The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and US Corporate Veil Doctrines. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 2011;34:329.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935.
United States v Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co 142 F 247 (1906).
Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), s 41.
Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), s 171(2).
Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), s 8(2).
Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), s 211(5).
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415
Len Sealy and Sarah Worthington, Cases and Materials in Company Law (10th edn, OUP 2013) 51.
Morkor v Kuma (No 1) [1999–2000] 1 GLR 721.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935.
Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832.
Ben Hashem v Al Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam), paras 150-164.
Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC (HL) 90.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 (CA); Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832.
Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433.
DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852.
Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433.
Cheng TK. The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and US Corporate Veil Doctrines. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 2011;34:329.
Phillip I Blumberg, The Law of Corporate Groups: Procedural Problems in the Law of Parent and Subsidiary Corporations (Little Brown 1983) 8–10.
Moore M. A Temple Built on Faulty Foundations: Piercing the Corporate Veil and the Legacy of Salomon v Salomon. Journal of Business Law. 2006:180.
Morkor v Kuma (No 1) [1999–2000] 1 GLR 721, 732.
Robert B Thompson, ‘Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study’ (1991) 76 Cornell Law Review 1036, 1040–1042.
Berkey v Third Avenue Railway Co 244 NY 84, 94–95 (1926).
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 (CA); Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832.
ibid.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34.
Thompson RB. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Is the Common Law the Problem? Connecticut Law Review. 2005;37:619.
Morkor v Kuma (East Coast Fisheries Case) [1998–99] SCGLR 620.
Appenteng and Others v Bank of West Africa Ltd and Others [1961] GLR 81.
Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), ss 8(2), 41, 171(2), 211(5).
South African Companies Act 71 of 2008, s 20(9).
Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1995 (4) SA 790.
Cheng TK. The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and US Corporate Veil Doctrines. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 2011;34:329.
Munjal S. Company Law: Lifting of Corporate Veil. SSRN Working Paper. 2010.
Cheng TK. The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and US Corporate Veil Doctrines. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 2011;34:329.
Tuyisenge S. The Concept of Piercing Corporate Veil. 2022: 6.
Vermeulen EPM. Beneficial ownership and control: a comparative study —disclosure, information and enforcement. OECD Corporate Governance Working Papers No. 7. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2013. p.7-13, 27-35.
ibid.
ibid.
Financial Action Task Force. Guidance on Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons. Paris: FATF; 2023. paras 1-12,
Cheng TK. The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and US Corporate Veil Doctrines. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 2011;34:329.
Blumberg PI. The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. p. 89–98.
World Bank. Enhancing Government Effectiveness and Transparency: The Fight Against Corruption. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020. p.155-178.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence. OJ L. 2024. Recitals 7–16, 47–56; Arts 5–11, 22–29; United Nations Human Rights Council. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Geneva: United Nations; 2011. Principles 13, 17–22, pp.14–18.
Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) (Ghana).
Armour J, Hansmann H, Kraakman R. What is corporate law? In: Kraakman R, Armour J, Davies P, Enriques L, Hansmann H, Hertig G, et al, editors. The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. p.1-28,
World Economic Forum. Global Risks Report 2024: Corporate Governance and Emerging Technologies. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2024.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34.
South African Companies Act 71 of 2008, s 20(9).
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22; 51-54.
Muchlinski P. Multinational Enterprises and the Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. p.87-105, 467-490.
Blumberg PI. The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. p.89-98.
Muchlinski P. Multinational Enterprises and the Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. p.467-490.
Sjåfjell B, Mähönen J. Corporate Purpose and the Misleading Shareholder vs Stakeholder Dichotomy. Bond Law Review. 2024;34:69–95.
Sjåfjell B, Mähönen J. Reimagining Corporate Purpose for a Safe and Just World. Nordic & European Company Law Working Paper 25-06; 2025.
OECD. OECD Corporate Governance Factbook 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. p.15-32, 145-166.
Sjåfjell B, Mähönen J. Corporate Governance for Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p.15-38.
Armour J, Hansmann H, Kraakman R. What is corporate law? In: Kraakman R, Armour J, Davies P, Enriques L, Hansmann H, Hertig G, et al, editors. The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. p.5-15.
Blumberg PI. The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. p.89-120.
ibid., p.95-108.
Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433; 536-545.
OECD. OECD Corporate Governance Factbook 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. p.145-166.
Sjåfjell B, Mähönen J. Corporate Governance for Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p.115-127.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415, paras 16-35.
Ex Parte Gore and Others NNO 2013 (3) SA 382 (WCC); Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1995 (4) SA 790.
