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

GPGC v. Ghana, Order of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Nov 4, 2021

4 Nov 2021
Ghana Power Generation Company v. Republic of Ghana, PCA Case No. 2019-05
View case details
Order of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales
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)
John Beechey, J. William Rowley, Albert K. Fiadjoe
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Sara Cockerill
Claimant's counsel
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
Christopher Bailey
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Ghana, Ghana Power Generation Company
Country
United Kingdom
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This Order, issued by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Commercial Court), addresses an ex parte application by the Claimant under Sections 66(1) and 66(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Claimant sought leave to enforce an arbitral award dated 26 January 2021 (PCA Case No. 2019-05) and to enter judgment against the Defendant, the Republic of Ghana.

Jurisdiction and State Immunity

Reviewing the application on the papers, including the witness statement of Christopher Bailey, the Court determined that the Defendant was not entitled to sovereign immunity. The Court specifically relied on the exceptions to immunity codified in Sections 2 and/or 9 of the State Immunity Act 1978, thereby establishing jurisdiction to enforce the underlying arbitral award.

Decision and Operative Directions

The Court granted leave to enforce the Award and entered judgment for the Claimant in the principal sum of US$ 134,348,661, plus compounded interest at LIBOR plus 6%, and US$ 3,309,877.74 in arbitration and legal costs. The Court credited US$ 34,348,661 previously paid by the Defendant against the judgment debt. Furthermore, the Court granted permission to serve the Order out of the jurisdiction and afforded the Defendant two months and 22 days to apply to set aside the Order, staying active enforcement during this period. The Defendant was also ordered to pay £65,000 in summarily assessed costs for the application.