REPUBLIC v. NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL-SAU, JA (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA- OSEI, JA
- TANKO AMADU, JA
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Scancom Ghana Ltd. (MTN) launched a consumer promotion for the 2014 Soccer World Cup, which the National Lottery Authority (NLA) claimed was a disguised lottery, thus demanding its termination. MTN sought judicial review, and the High Court ruled in favor of MTN, stating that the promotion was not a lottery and fell outside the NLA’s regulatory mandate. The NLA appealed, but the appeal was dismissed. Key findings were that the National Lottery Act does not define 'lottery', which rendered section 4 ineffective in this case. The court emphasized the importance of national legislative definitions and rejected adopting foreign definitions for enforcement.
MARFUL-SAU, JA :- The facts of this appeal are as follows; on the 1st of March 2014 the applicant/ respondent in this appeal Scancom Ghana Ltd. lunched a business promotion called the MTN GO RIO PROMOTION (hereinafter called the Promotion) The promotion was to run for 90 days. According to the applicant/ respondent the promotion was a marketing strategy to advertise itself and also to get its name imprinted in the minds of the public. The promotion was also to create public excitement in the 2014 Soccer World Cup in which Ghana participated. The promotion was opened to all subscribers of the applicant/ respondent and prizes to be won included 80 Samsung LED television sets, 30 Samsung Galaxy Tablets, 150 Samsung S3 mini handsets, 550 Huawei Y 220 Ascend phones, free air time, and 5 brand new KIA RIO saloons cars. According to the applicant/ respondent its subscribers did not have to pay any sum of money to be eligible for the promotion and no draw was organised to determine winners.
On the 16th of April 2014, the respondent/appellant herein the National Lottery Authority wrote to the applicant/ respondent requesting that they terminate the promotion since in their view the promotion was a form of disguised lottery. The applicant/ respondent on receipt of this letter wrote to deny that the promotion was a form of lottery. The respondent/ appellant then commenced an action at the Circuit Court seeking several reliefs among them an injunction to restrain the applicant/respondent from continuing with the promotion. The applicant/ respondent then applied for Judicial Review from the High Court seeking the following reliefs:-
‘’i)That respondent has no authority whatsoever to seek to prevent us from continuing with our promotion which is clearly a consumer promotion and not lotto and/or a game of chance.
ii)That respondent a creation of statute, and more specifically a creation of the National Lottery Act, 2006, Act 722 is required to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute and does not include a right and /or authority to prevent us from engaging in promotions. Its directive contained in exhibit MTN 2 is therefore without any basis whatsoever and howsoever.
iii)An order of Quo Warranto directed at respondent to show the basis of its action and on its failure an injunction to restrain respondent from interfering whatsoever and howsoever with the promotion of applicant.
iv)Damages of GH₵2, 000,000.00(Two Million Ghana Cedis)
On the 24t