OSEI - BONSU VRS GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK & ANOTHER (HI/76/2020) [2021] GHACA 41 (27 May 2021)
Section 141 of Act 930 mandates that disputes arising from the Bank of Ghana's decisions under specified sections must be referred to arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798). The High Court's jurisdiction is deferred, not ousted, and the trial judge was correct in referring the matter to arbitration. The Appellant's claim did not raise a constitutional issue or a public interest matter that would exempt it from arbitration.
- Citation
- [2021] GHACA 41
- Parties
- Plaintiff/appellant: Osei-Bonsu Joseph; 1st Defendant/respondent: Ghana Commercial Bank; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Bank of Ghana
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Ghana
- Judgment Date
- 27 May 2021
- Case Number
- HI/76/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (labour Division) to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Ouster Clauses, Jurisdiction of Courts, Arbitration, Employment Contracts, Interpretation of Statutes
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Osei-Bonsu Joseph
Plaintiff/appellant
Ghana Commercial Bank
1st Defendant/respondent
Bank of Ghana
2nd Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (labour Division) to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute in light of section 141 of the Banks and Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930)
- 2 Whether the dispute should be referred to arbitration under Act 930 and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798)
- 3 Whether section 141 of Act 930 is inconsistent with Article 140 of the 1992 Constitution
Ratio Decidendi
Section 141 of Act 930 mandates that disputes arising from the Bank of Ghana's decisions under specified sections must be referred to arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798). The High Court's jurisdiction is deferred, not ousted, and the trial judge was correct in referring the matter to arbitration. The Appellant's claim did not raise a constitutional issue or a public interest matter that would exempt it from arbitration.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The ruling of the High Court referring the dispute to arbitration is affirmed.
- The matter is to be resolved by arbitration under Act 930 and Act 798.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment