Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Ghana Power Generation Company v. Republic of Ghana, PCA Case No. 2019-05

16 Apr 2024
Ghana Power Generation Company v. Republic of Ghana, PCA Case No. 2019-05
View case details
Judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
F.J. van de Poel, Ruben de Graaff, A.S. Arnold
Claimant's counsel
Dirk Knottenbelt, Jonas Angelier
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Ghana, Ghana Power Generation Company
Country
Netherlands
Print reporter
Document Summary
Judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

GPGC Limited petitioned the Amsterdam Court of Appeal for leave to enforce an arbitral award dated January 26, 2021, rendered against the Republic of Ghana. The underlying dispute arose from the early termination of an Emergency Purchase Agreement, resulting in an award of approximately USD 134.3 million plus interest and costs in favor of GPGC. Ghana did not appear in the enforcement proceedings before the Dutch court.

Legal Issues and Court's Analysis

The principal legal issue concerned the formal requirements for enforcement under the 1958 New York Convention. Specifically, the Court examined whether GPGC’s inability to produce the original or a certified copy of the arbitration agreement, as stipulated by Article IV of the Convention, precluded enforcement. The Court adopted a pragmatic approach, holding that strict non-compliance with Article IV does not carry a mandatory sanction precluding enforcement where the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement are undisputed. The Court observed that Ghana had not contested the agreement during the arbitration, had made partial payments toward the award, and that the award had already been recognized and declared enforceable in England.

Decision

Having established its jurisdiction based on the identification of Ghanaian assets within the Amsterdam district, and finding no grounds for refusal under Article V(2) of the New York Convention regarding arbitrability or public policy, the Court granted the petition. The Court formally granted leave to enforce the arbitral award in the Netherlands and ordered Ghana to bear the costs of the proceedings.