Judicial side
-1
archive,category,category-judicial-side,category-56,bridge-core-2.6.0,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,footer_responsive_adv,qode-theme-ver-24.5,qode-theme-bridge,qode_advanced_footer_responsive_1000,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.5.0,vc_responsive
 

“A mortgage shall have no legal effect until it is registered.” In 2007, the 2nd Defendant (the “Mortgagor”) mortgaged his property as collateral for a loan to the Appellant (the “Mortgagee”), on consent of the Lands Commission. Both parties failed to register the executed mortgage at the Lands Commission until 2010. Meanwhile, between 2008 and 2009, separate portions of the encumbered property were assigned respectively to the 1st Claimant and the 2nd Claimant (the “Claimants”). Subsequently, the Mortgagee obtained judgement against the Mortgagor for recovery of the loan and attached the property in question in satisfaction of the judgment. The Claimants filed their respective claims which resulted in interpleader proceedings initiated by the Sheriff of the High Court. The High Court held that the Claimants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the encumbrance and discharged the properties from the attachment. The Mortgagee appealed to the Court of Appeal and same was dismissed. The Mortgagee further appealed to the Supreme Court, where the fundamental issue was restated as “whether or not the 1st and 2nd Claimants/Respondents in the circumstances of this case were bona fide purchasers for value without notice”. The Court held that in assessing whether a purchaser of land is a...

“The parties contracted to be governed by the FIDIC Rules. These Rules provide for a dispute resolution process.” The Plaintiff was contracted by the Defendant to put up a 160 – bed regional hospital at Wa in the Upper West Region of the Republic of Ghana. The parties contracted under the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) Rules (“the Rules”). As the work progressed, the Defendant was issued invoices in tranches for work done. The Defendant refused to make payment and terminated the contract. The Plaintiff commenced an action in the High Court claiming payment for work done among others. The Defendant applied and the matter was referred by the Court to the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) per the Rules. The DAB determined that the Defendant should pay a sum of money. The Defendant gave a notice of dissatisfaction to the Plaintiff before the expiration of 21 days and the High Court, per the Rules, referred the matter to international arbitration. The Plaintiff appealed the decision to refer the matter to arbitration. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court and it considered three main issues: · Whether the DAB process was an arbitration and its...

“Wrongful dismissal or unfair termination? Distinct causes of action and thresholds exist under the statute for challenging termination of employment.” The Plaintiff was the Deputy Branch Manager of the Defendant bank. The Plaintiff was presented with two transfer request letters from a corporate accountholder of the Defendant, for the transfer of sums of money to the accountholder’s client. The Plaintiff signed against the signatures on the transfer request letters without following due process and forwarded them to the International Business Centre (IBC) of the Defendant bank. The sums were duly transferred to the named beneficiary. It was later discovered that the signature on the transfer request letters was forged and the Defendant bank could not recover the amounts transferred. On the basis that the Plaintiff acted negligently, causing loss to his employer, the Defendant bank terminated the employment of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for wrongful termination of employment the trial High Court, however, held that Plaintiff’s employment had been unfairly terminated. By appellate ruling, the Court of Appeal held that the employment of the Plaintiff had not been terminated unlawfully or wrongfully as he had been negligent in the performance of his duty. Further appeal solidified that, “unfair termination” is a...