2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This is an appeal from the High Court (Labour Division) in Accra, where the court stayed proceedings and referred a labour-related dispute to arbitration. The Appellant, an employee of UT Bank Ltd, challenged the Bank of Ghana’s revocation of UT Bank’s licence and the Purchase and Assumption transaction with GCB Bank, seeking declarations, injunctions, and damages for interference with his employment. GCB Bank and the Bank of Ghana argued that section 141 of the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930) mandates arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798). The Court of Appeal, per Jennifer A. Dodoo, JA, held that section 141’s mandatory “shall” requires arbitration, deferring—rather than ousting—the High Court’s jurisdiction. The court rejected the Appellant’s “public interest” characterization, finding the dispute concerned personal rights. It further noted that constitutional issues must be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 130, and the omnibus weight-of-evidence ground failed. The appeal was dismissed.
DODOO, JA (MRS)
This appeal is against the decision of the High Court (Labour Division); delivered in Accra on 6th December, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Appellant) instituted suit against the Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) on 13th October, 2017 claiming the following reliefs:
A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Section 123 of the Banks and Specialized Deposit Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930), the 2nd Defendant acted unlawfully and in ultra vires its powers in appointing two (2) persons as Receivers when it could appoint only a RECEIVER.
A declaration that the 2nd Defendant acted unlawfully and ultra vires its powers when it entered into a Purchase and Assumption transaction with the GCB Bank, 1st defendant herein to have control over the assets and liabilities of the UT Bank in which the Plaintiff has an employment contract.
An Order of Injunction restraining Messrs. Vish Ashiagbor and Eric Nipa from holding themselves out as Receivers on the basis of the ultra vires action of the 2nd Defendant.
An order declaring the letter of the 1st Defendant dated the 29th September, 2017 as a nullity.
An order of Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from denying the Plaintiff access to his office and any interference with Plaintiff’s employment contract with UT Bank Ltd.
General Damages against the 1st Defendant for unlawful interference with the employment contract of the Plaintiff.
Any other order/s as the Court may deem fit.
The Appellant’s case was that he brought this action against the Respondents in his capacity as an employee of UT Bank Ltd who stood to litigate his labour rights in his employment contract with the UT Bank. He also described himself as a qualifying as a person affected by the revocation of the licence of the Bank and the incidental Purchase and Assumption Agreement entered into between the 2nd Respondent and the 1st Respondent in respect of the Bank as per the provisions of section 141 (1) (c) and (a) of the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930). (pages 2-7 of the Record of Appeal {ROA})
The 1st Respondent’s case is that by section 141 of Act 930 any aggrieved person instituting an action under Act 930 would have to resort to arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) and not to a court. (See p. 17 of the ROA).
The 2