DR. MARK ASSIBEY-YEBOAH vs. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA, GHANA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2016]DLSC3187

DR. MARK ASSIBEY-YEBOAH vs. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA, GHANA NATIONAL PETROLE... [2016]DLSC3187

Date	2016-07-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/7/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLSC3187

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

PWAMANG JSC

ALEXANDER KWAMENA AFENYO MARKIN WITH KORKOR OKUTU FOR JOE SLOVO TIA FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT.

TONY LITHUR FOR 2ND DEFENDANT WITH MRS. EMEAFA HARDCASTLE PHILIP JIMANOR AND ROMA LOKKO.

THE PLAINTIFF. DR. DOMINIC AYINE DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH MISS GRACE OPPONG PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY AND CEPHAS MOTEY FOR 3RD DEFENDANT.

[2016]DLSC3187
																																						<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" >DR. MARK ASSIBEY-YEBOAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF
GHANA, GHANA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/7/2016&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 28TH JULY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>ALEXANDER
KWAMENA AFENYO MARKIN WITH KORKOR OKUTU FOR JOE SLOVO TIA FOR THE 1ST&nbsp;&nbsp; DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>TONY
LITHUR FOR 2ND DEFENDANT WITH MRS. EMEAFA HARDCASTLE, PHILIP JIMANOR
AND ROMA LOKKO.<o:p></o:p>THE
PLAINTIFF.<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">

DR.
DOMINIC AYINE ,DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH MISS GRACE OPPONG, PRINCIPAL STATE
ATTORNEY AND CEPHAS MOTEY FOR 3RD&nbsp;
DEFENDANT.<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 1.0pt 0in">

DOTSE JSC&nbsp;
(PRESIDING),&nbsp; ANIN YEBOAH JSC,
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC, BENIN JSC, AND PWAMANG
JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DOTSE JSC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Our
respected and eminent sister, Sophia Akuffo (Ms) JSC in the unanimous ruling of
the Supreme Court in the case of Republic v High Court, (Commercial Division),
Accra; Ex-parte Attorney-General (Balkan Energy Ghana Limited and others -Interested
Parties) [2011] 2 SCGLR 1183 held as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“According
to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996) to interpret is to explain the
meaning of something in order to determine intent. For the purposes of
interpretation, “intent” more often than not also includes scope. Now in Attorney General v Faroe Atlantic Co.
Limited (supra) this court expounded the meaning of the expression “an
international business or economic transaction to which the Government is a
party”, as used in article 181 (5), within a particular context, i.e. an agreement between the Government of
Ghana and a foreign company. Where, in a subsequent matter, a party
contends that the scope of the provision is broader and covers an agreement
between the Government of Ghana and a domestic party of a certain type, then
the intent and scope of the provision once again falls to be determined, not by
the High Court, but by the constitutionally – clothed court, the Supreme Court.
The matter is not merely one of applying the provisions of article 181 (5) in
accordance with and along the lines of the previous interpretation.” Emphasis <o:p></o:p>Has
the Supreme Court since the decision in the case of Attorney-General v Faroe Atlantic
[2005-2006] SCGLR 271 and Balkan
Energy cases referred to (supra), had occasion to again interpret article
181 (5) provisions of the Constitution 1992 in a manner as to make it
unnecessary for this court’s original jurisdiction to be invoked in the
circumstances in which it has been done?<o:p></o:p>Such
an opportunity occurred for the Supreme Court to bring sufficient clarity and
give guidance to the scope of the article 181 (5) provisions of the
Constitution in a matter that involved the definition of international business
and that decision gave sufficient guidelines on what a court is to do when
faced with what set of criteria to use, i.e. a road map as it were.<o:p></o:p>That
case is the decision of this Court in Attorney General v Balkan Energy [2012] 2 SCGLR
998 at 1034 where this court interpreted article 181 (5) as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“We think
that a business transaction is “international” within the context of Article
181 (5) where the nature of the business which is the subject-matter of the
transaction is international in the sense of having a significant foreign
element or the parties to the transaction (other than the Government) have a
foreign nationality reside in different countries or, in the case of companies,
the place of their central management and control is outside Ghana.” Emphasis <o:p></o:p>We
think it is useful to refer extensi</main>