FOOD SPECIALITIES (GHANA) LTD vs. RAMIA [1989]DLSC584

Date	1989-11-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC584

ADADE AG CJ

WUAKU J.S.C

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C

EDWARD WIREDU J.S.C.

OFORI-BOATENG J.A.

ADTIAMA OSEI FOR THE APPELLANT.

D O LAMPTEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1989]DLSC584
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >FOOD SPECIALITIES (GHANA)
LTD <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>RAMIA <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 324<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
19 NOVEMBER
1989<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADTIAMA OSEI FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

D O LAMPTEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADADE AG CJ, WUAKU, AMUA-SEKYI AND
EDWARD<o:p></o:p>

WIREDU JJ.S.C. AND OFORI-BOATENG J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE AG. CJ.<o:p></o:p>I have
had the advantage of reading beforehand the opinions of my brothers Amua-Sekyi
JSC and Ofori-Boateng JA. Both have sketched the facts of this case in great
detail, and I do not need to repeat them here.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
incontrovertible that the Court of Appeal is not the proper forum to go, in the
first instance, to seek a change or withdrawal of an arbitrator for whatever
reason. The court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the application which
resulted in the ruling of 26 February 1989, now on appeal before us.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But there
is an even more fundamental issue than the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal,
going to the root of the arbitration itself. The issue has been brought about
by the fact that instead of the two parties respecting the agreement to appoint
a single arbitrator, as provided in the tenancy agreement of October 1982, they
chose to resort to two arbitrators, thus inviting a consideration of section 12
(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1961 (Act 38),which provides that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1)
Unless a contrary intention is expressed therein, [ie in the written
agreement], every arbitration agreement shall, where the reference is to two
arbitrators, be deemed to include a provision that the two arbitrators shall
appoint an umpire immediately after they are themselves appointed.”<o:p></o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.) In other words in all two-member arbitrations, the
appointment of an umpire is mandatory, unless a contrary intention is expressed
in the relevant agreement. So that if the parties expressly state that they
want the dispute to be settled by a two member arbitration without an umpire,
the law will respect their wishes. In the absence of such clearly expressed statement
tile law expects that the two arbitrators will appoint an umpire before
embarking upon the reference. Otherwise the arbitration will be deemed to be
improperly constituted. Tile idea of having an umpire or a third arbitrator is
to avoid a stalemate in the event of a disagreement. In court-appointed
arbitrations the position is regulated by Order 72. R 4 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A) which reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(4) If
the reference be to two or more arbitrators, Provision shall be made in the
order for a difference of opinion among the arbitrators, by the appointment of
an umpire, or by declaring that the decision shall be with the majority, or by
empowering the arbitrators to appoint an umpire, or otherwise as may be agreed
upon between the parties,- or, if they cannot agree, as the Court may
determine.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>In this
case the parties originally agreed to have one arbitrator: “a qualified
certified surveyor.” When they came to appoint, however, each party appointed
one arbitrator, impliedly indicating that they have, by consent, altered the
arbitration clause by substituting “. . . two qualified certified surveyors”
for “a qualified certified surveyor” without more (and there was no more).
Section 12 imports into such a clause an obligation to appoint an umpire. It is
clear to me from my reading of section 12 of Act 38 that the law will not, in
the absence of a clear statement to the contrary, presume an intention not to
have an umpire. Such an intention must be express, not implied or inferred. The
arbitration here proceeded without an umpire, as though there was an express
intention not to have one. No such express intention appears on the face of the
record.<o:p></o:p>