PINE SPRINGS LIMITED VS UNIVERSITY OF GHANA & ANOR
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’
Areas of Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved an application by the Applicants to enforce an arbitral award dated 12th July 2022. The Respondent opposed on the basis that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction but did not take procedural steps to set aside or stay the award. The court noted that questions of jurisdiction must follow prescribed legal procedures and found that the Respondent failed to properly challenge the award's validity. Key legal principles included the adherence to statutory jurisdictional limits for arbitral matters and the necessity of following procedural norms to dispute jurisdiction. The court granted the enforcement of the arbitral award, with no order as to costs.
On 17th October 2022, the Respondents/Applicants (hereinafter called the Applicants) filed an application for the enforcement of arbitral award between the parties.
The motion is supported by affidavit and exhibits.
The Claimant/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent) filed affidavit in opposition on 7th July 2023. The motion was subsequently argued for and against by counsel for the parties.
In this case, an arbitral award was published between the parties on 12th July, 2022. The arbitral award has not been set aside by any court.
The Respondent in its affidavit in opposition contended, that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction in respect of the arbitral proceedings.
Counsel for the Applicants contended otherwise.
It is settled law, that an arbitrator cannot arbitrate on a matter which section 1 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) prohibit or proscribe.
See: KOFI OTOPA (SUBSTITUTED BY MATILDA ASANTEWAA) v AMANKWA OTOPABIA [2022] 177 GMJ 190 CA It is also trite law, that if a party or an adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an action, then whatever the Court or the adjudicating authority will do will be a nullity.
That is why the court itself can raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu and determine it.
See: BIMPONG BUTA v GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 1200 ANTHONY SAKYI v GA SOUTH MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY [2022] 178 GMJ 216 CA The issue of a court’s jurisdiction is very central to every case.
This is because; an adjudicating authority cannot behave like an octopus and stretch its tentacles to grab jurisdiction where it has not been conferred with by statute or charter.
Jurisdiction is the authority a court or an adjudicating authority has to determine a case between parties.
It may be restricted or extended by statute or like manner.
See: YEBOAH v MENSAH [1998-1999] SCGLR 492 EDUSEI v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1996-1997] SCGLR 1 To that extent, jurisdiction is determined by the real issues between the parties.
See: ANIN v ABABIO & OTHERS [1973] 1 GLR 509 I have already indicated, that an arbitrator cannot entertain an action which section 1 of Act 798 prohibits.
However, if the contention of the Respondent is that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter because it borders on the environment which is listed under section 1 of Act 798, then the Respondent ought to have issued Writ of Summons in that respect, plead it and give particulars of same.
So that when the mat