KHOURY v. KHOURY

Following dissolution of a long-standing partnership effective April 1, 1958, the partners signed a memorandum dividing physical assets and instructed their solicitor, Mr. J. H. Lynes of Lynes & Cridland in Accra, to prepare transfers. The appellant later withdrew instructions, refused to sign the draft deed, and asserted conditions tied to accounts, leading to a dispute. The parties’ solicitors (Mr. Akufo‑Addo for the appellant, Messrs. Giles Hunt & Co. for the respondent) recognized the broad arbitration clause in the 1930 deed, yet the respondent sued in the High Court seeking declarations, specific performance, accounts, and payments to Barclays Bank D.C.O. for F. & M. Khoury. Smith, J. refused a stay; on appeal, the Supreme Court (per Van Lare, J.S.C., with concurrences by Sarkodee‑Adoo, J.S.C., and Crabbe, J.S.C.) held the disputes fall squarely within the comprehensive arbitration clause and that arbitrators may determine both law and fact. Applying section 5 of the Arbitration Ordinance and persuasive English authorities, the Court set aside the refusal, allowed the appeal, and ordered a stay of proceedings to enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.