GREENLINE LOGISTICS LIMITED VS AEL MINING SERVICES (GHANA) LIMITED

APPLICANT’S CASE

The Plaintiff/Applicant has brought the instant application on the 11th of December 2017 to re-list the suit which had been referred to the Ghana Arbitration Centre.

The case of the Applicant is that, following the order of the court given on 17th November 2015, (Exhibit EN) the suit was struck out for the parties to submit to arbitration as earlier ordered and for same to be relisted if need be(EXHIBIT EN1). The Applicant avers that, every step to kick start the arbitration was bedeviled with administrative lapses by the Ghana Arbitration Centre and undue delay by the Respondent causing the Applicant to apply to re-list the matter for same to be heard by the court but same was declined (EXHIBIT EN2). The Applicant in obeying the courts order restarted the arbitration proceedings by a letter they wrote to the Ghana Arbitration Centre.

The Applicant states that, it took nearly two months for the Ghana Arbitration Centre to acknowledge the letter and to act on it.

Following a series of letters written to the Ghana Arbitration Centre, a sole arbitrator was appointed which the Applicants acknowledged by its letter of 6th June, 2017. A date was scheduled for the Arbitration Management Meeting which was adjourned on two occasions.

The Ghana Arbitration Centre later wrote to the parties fixing a date for the Arbitration Management Meeting and demanding as conditions precedent that, the Applicant pays Twenty Thousand Dollars (USD$20, 000. 00) on or before 30th November 2017 and Fifteen Thousand Dollars (USD $15, 000. 00) before publication of the award, plus Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢10, 000. 00) as Administrative and Secretarial expenses. (Exhibit EN13)The Applicant therefore states that these conditions made it impossible for the arbitration proceeding to take place as the Applicant does not have the ability to meet the financial burden imposed on them and the said prerequisites constitutes an impediment to the arbitration process, which has been communicated to the Arbitration Center.

To buttress this argument, Applicant stresses that Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism is designed principally to save time and costs and to remove the bitterness, inconvenience and frustration that accompany litigation.

The Applicant states that the financial difficulties of the Applicant should not constitute any hindrance as that will amount to denying it access to justice.

The sum of Applicant’s case is that the continuous undue delay, procedur