Newmont Golden Ridge Limited v. Engineering Logistics Services Ltd

This judgment arises out of an application by the Applicant herein to set aside the undated arbitral award made by Mr. Apatu of the Ghana Engineers Association on the basis that same was made in violation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010(Act 798). CASE OF THE APPLICANT.

The grievance of the Applicant is contained in the affidavit in support of the motion filed on 12th March, 2018. The Applicant also filed two supplementary affidavits on 15th March 2018 and 30th October, 2018. A summation of the plaint of the Applicant is as follows: The Applicant states that by an order of the High Court dated 3rd March, 2015, the Court appointed the Ghana Institute of Engineers as an arbitrator to resolve a dispute between the parties herein.

That the said dispute concerned the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of two separate contracts; the General Services Agreement (the GSA) dated 31st May, 2013 and the Construction Agreement dated 13th September, 2011. The Applicant attached both agreements as Exhibits “RD2” and “RD3”. According to the Applicant, pursuant to the order of the Court, the Ghana Institute of Engineers appointed one Ing.

Wilfred Edwin Owusu Apatu as the sole arbitrator in the matter.

That subsequent to the appointment and arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator granted an award in favor of the Respondent herein, which award was purportedly made from the USA, where the sole arbitrator was stationed.

It is the case of the Applicant that the award is undated and was made in breach of the statutory provisions contained in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798), the most fundamental of which was failure to give each party a fair hearing.

The Applicant says also that the Arbitrator‟s mode of conducting the arbitration was by sending and obtaining emails from the parties (some in respect of which the other party was not copied) and asking the parties to respond to questionnaires.

The Applicant says further that it was not furnished with all documents and correspondence exchanged between the Arbitrator and the Respondent.

The Applicant continues that the Arbitrator prejudged matters in favor of the Respondent without first giving it an opportunity to be heard.

In proof of this, the Applicant attached Exhibit “RD8” being a copy of a questionnaire issued to it.

According to the Applicant, it made a request for oral evidence or evidence in the form of witness statements to be taken, but this was turned down by