ED & F MAN SUGAR LTD VS HIPPO LTD & ANOR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Applicant sought the Court's intervention to inspect, audit, and preserve sugar stored in a warehouse, relying on Section 39 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010. Although the application was initially granted, the Court later reviewed its jurisdiction to grant such orders, especially since the arbitration was to be conducted in London. The Respondent argued that the Act lacked international application, and there was no ongoing arbitration in Ghana. The Court held that its jurisdiction under Section 39 of Act 798 was limited to ongoing arbitral proceedings within Ghana and struck off the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
By an originating motion Ex-Parte the Applicant sought for:
1. An order compelling Hippo Ltd to permit and do all things necessary to facilitate an inspection and audit by the Applicant of Hippo Warehouse, plot No. IND/A/C4/90 &91, Kpone Heavy Industrial Area and all sugar therein immediately on receiving service of this order.
2. An order for the detention and interim preservation of any or all of the parcels of sugar which were transported from either the MV CS Candy or the MV Mel Pride, including any other sugar which might have been commingled with the aforesaid sugar stored at Hippo Warehouse, Plot No. IND/A/C4/90 & 91, Kpone Heavy Industrial Area, for a period of ten (10) days.
3. An order directing Registrar, Chief Bailiff or other appropriate officer in the discretion of the Honourable Court immediately to take all necessary steps and to do all necessary acts to secure Hippo Warehouse, Plot No. IND/A/C4/90 & 91, Kpone Heavy Industrial Area and all sugar therein, immediately on receiving service of this order, for a period of ten (10) days.
The Court did grant this application for the period and the Applicant was ordered to bring it on notice.
This was done and same was opposed.
At the return date the Court was of the view that its jurisdiction had been wrongly invoked by the application seeking the reliefs in question under S. 39 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 Act 798 and Order 25 r 2 of C. I. 47 (The High Court and Civil Procedure Rules 2004). The Court took the view that it had erred in entertaining the application in the first instance and would not hear the substantive application.
The Court also noticed that the Respondent had also raised the issue of jurisdiction in its affidavit in opposition.
The Applicant took the view that the Court did have jurisdiction to hear the Application and addressed the Court on that.
He referred to S. 39 of Act 798 supra which reads as follows: Powers of the High Court to support arbitral proceedings 39.