Section 93 Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020

Section 93 CAMA 2020

Section 93 Companies and Allied Matters Act is about Presumptions of regularity. It is under Liability for Acts of the Company of Chapter 5 of PART B (Incorporation of Companies and Incidental Matters) of the Act.

Presumptions of regularity

A person dealing with a company or with someone deriving title under the company, is entitled to make the following assumptions and the company and those deriving title under it shall be estopped from denying their truth that—

(a) the company’s memorandum and articles have been duly complied with ;

(b) every person described in the particulars filed with the Commission pursuant to sections 36 (4) (c), 319 and 337 of this Act as a director, managing director or secretary of the company, or represented by the company, acting through its members in general meeting, board of directors, or managing director, as an officer or agent of the company, has been duly appointed and has authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties customarily exercised or performed by a director, managing director, or secretary of a company carrying on business of the type carried on by the company or customarily exercised or performed by an officer or agent of the type concerned ;

(c) the secretary of the company, and every officer or agent of the company having authority to issue documents or certified copies of documents on behalf of the company, has authority to warrant the genuineness of the documents or the accuracy of the copies so issued ; and

(d) a document has been duly sealed by the company if it bears what purports to be the seal of the company attested by what purports to be the signatures of two persons who, in accordance with paragraph (b), can be assumed to be a director and the secretary of the company :

See also  Section 39 Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020

Provided that a person shall not be entitled to—
(i) make such assumptions, if he had actual knowledge to the contrary or if, having regard to his position with or relationship to the company, he ought to have known the contrary, and
(ii) assume that any one or more of the directors of the company have been appointed to act as a committee of the board of directors or that an officer or agent of the company has the company’s authority merely because the company’s articles provided that authority to act in the matter that may be delegated to a committee, an officer or agent.

Published by

LawGlobal Hub

LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. Among other things, we ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *