Ecobank Transnational Incorporated v Tanoh

Ecobank Transnational Incorporated v Tanoh

The Court of Appeal held that, although the claims fell within the arbitration clause and Ecobank had not submitted to foreign jurisdiction, Ecobank’s delay in seeking injunctive relief until after foreign judgments were entered, and after significant proceedings and expense, justified refusal of an anti-enforcement injunction. Comity and equitable considerations, including prejudice to the respondent and waste of judicial resources, weighed against granting relief.

Parties
Appellant: Ecobank Transnational Incorporated; Respondent: Mr Thierry Tanoh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Anti Enforcement Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Enforcement Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Jurisdiction, Comity, Delay in Equitable Relief
Arbitration Employment Law Conflict of Laws Anti Enforcement Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Jurisdiction Comity Delay in Equitable Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ecobank Transnational Incorporated

Appellant

Mr Thierry Tanoh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Anti Enforcement Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims in Togo and Côte d’Ivoire were within the scope of the arbitration clause
  2. 2 Whether Ecobank lost its right to object to jurisdiction by pleading to the merits or delay
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking injunctive relief precludes grant of anti-enforcement injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, although the claims fell within the arbitration clause and Ecobank had not submitted to foreign jurisdiction, Ecobank’s delay in seeking injunctive relief until after foreign judgments were entered, and after significant proceedings and expense, justified refusal of an anti-enforcement injunction. Comity and equitable considerations, including prejudice to the respondent and waste of judicial resources, weighed against granting relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No anti-enforcement injunction granted
  • Costs to respondent