SHIKARI LIMITED v. THE BROAD BAND HOME LIMITED
September 26, 2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU
Areas of Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
September 26, 2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns Shikari Limited, a Mauritius-incorporated company, seeking leave in the Ghanaian High Court to enforce a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) final award against Broad Band Home Limited, a Ghanaian company. The parties’ 2014 Facilitation Agreement and subsequent Loan Agreement provided for LCIA arbitration. After Broad Band Home defaulted, a sole arbitrator awarded substantial sums under both agreements, interest at 12% per annum, and GBP 200,000 in costs. Broad Band Home opposed enforcement, arguing lack of authenticity of the award and absence of proof of reciprocity or convention status. Shikari filed a supplementary affidavit demonstrating the United Kingdom’s accession to the New York Convention, which the court accepted via judicial notice. Nonetheless, the court held that Shikari failed to prove a reciprocal arrangement and had not produced duly authenticated originals or certified copies of the award and arbitration agreements. LI 1575 was found inapplicable to arbitral awards. The application was dismissed, with costs of GH¢2,000 awarded to Broad Band Home Limited.
JUDGMENT
By an originating motion on notice filed on the 16th August 2018, the applicant, Shikari Limited, a limited liability company registered under the laws of Mauritius, seeks an order of this court for leave to enforce a final award dated the 22nd day of June 2018, made under the auspices of the London Court of International Arbitration, against the respondent, the Broad Band Home Limited, a company registered under the laws of the Republic of Ghana. The motion paper is supported by an affidavit and other exhibits. The respondent is opposed to the application as shown by its affidavit in opposition.
The applicant says in paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the supporting affidavit that:
7. On April 28, 2014, the Applicant and Respondent entered into an agreement by which the Applicant agreed, among other things, to arrange and provide a loan to the Respondent (“the Facilitation Agreement”). Attached and Marked as Exhibit A is the Facilitation Agreement.
8. Pursuant to the Facilitation Agreement, the Applicant further entered into a loan agreement with the Respondent, in which the Applicant agreed to lend to the respondent a minimum amount of USD2, 500,000 plus up to a further amount of USD7, 500,000 to enable Respondent extract itself from its existing financing arrangements with their bankers at the time, UT Bank (the “Loan Agreement”). Attached as Exhibit B is the Loan Agreement.
9. Under the Loan Agreement, the Applicant and the Respondent agreed that in the event of dispute they will subject themselves to arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration in London for the resolution of disputes.
Indeed, the applicant exhibited exhibit A and B, the Facilitation Agreement and the Loan Agreement respectively.
The applicant says that the respondent company defaulted on its obligations under the agreements as a result of which the arbitration clause under the agreements was invoked whereupon the parties proceeded to arbitration in London after which the sole arbitrator made an award to the effect that the respondent shall pay to the applicant:
i. Under the Loan Agreement, the principal sums of US$5,000,000.00 together with accrued interest in the sum of US$1,181,002.14 together US$6,181,002.14;
ii. Under the Facilitation Agreement the principal sums of US$125,000.00 and US$1,500,000.00 with accrued interest in the sums of US$19,367.80 and US$248,540.44 altogether US$1,892,908.24;
iii. Interest from date of the Award on the US dollar sum