CAL BANK LTD vs. SPRINGFIELD ENERGY LTD AND MR. KEVIN OKYERE [2022]DLHC11754

Date	2022-07-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/MISC/0527/2020
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC11754

HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’.

THADDEUS SORY FOR THE RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS

MAAME SARPONG FOR THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT

[2022]DLHC11754
																																						<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" >IN THE MATTER OF THE ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT, 2010 (ACT 798)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRAL
PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN CAL BANK LIMITED V SPRINGFIELD AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT 2010 (ACT 798)<o:p></o:p>BETWEEN<o:p></o:p>CAL BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>(CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SPRINGFIELD ENERGY LTD AND MR. KEVIN
OKYERE<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>THADDEUS SORY FOR THE RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

MAAME SARPONG FOR THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP
FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:150%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;I have heard the submissions
for and against the motion filed by the Applicants on 7th June,
2022.&nbsp; The Applicants are seeking the
determination of arbitrator’s jurisdiction in this case.&nbsp; I have gone through the documents filed in
this application for and in opposition to the application.<o:p></o:p>First, of all,
counsel for the Applicants filed supplementary affidavit in support of the
motion on 1st July, 2022.&nbsp; It
was filed without the leave of the court.&nbsp;
Orders 19 and 20 of CI.47 do not make provision for supplementary
affidavit.&nbsp; Therefore, if it becomes
necessary for a party to file same, the party must seek the leave of the court
under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.&nbsp;
This was not done in this case.&nbsp; I
will therefore, not attach any weight to the said supplementary affidavit.<o:p></o:p>It is the law
that filing a process not warranted by the rules of court is a nullity.&nbsp; Supplementary affidavit is not filed as of
right.<o:p></o:p>See: IDDRISU V AMARTEY [2009] SCGLR 670<o:p></o:p>The next issue I
wish to consider is whether the application has properly invoked the
jurisdiction of the court for the merits to be determined.&nbsp; It is only when the court’s jurisdiction has
been properly invoked that, the court will be clothed with power to determine
the merits of the application. One of the means by which a court will have
jurisdiction to entertain a matter is, if the suit or the application came
before the court initiated by due process of law upon fulfilment of any condition
precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>See: FRIMPONG &amp; ANOTHER V ROME [2013] 58 GMJ
131 CA<o:p></o:p>A court of law
cannot grant itself jurisdiction in matters where the relevant statutes do not confer
such power.<o:p></o:p>See: FRIMPONG AND ANOTHER V NYARKO [1998-89] SCGLR
734<o:p></o:p>REPUBLIC V HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(DELTA FOODS – INTERESTED PARTY) [1999-2000] 1 GLR 225 SC<o:p></o:p>That is why the
issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, especially if it is a subject
matter jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>