Ghana’s High Court has set aside a $33.3 million arbitral award against Justmoh Construction Limited, delivering a landmark ruling that exposes critical weaknesses in how arbitration proceedings are initiated and managed in complex infrastructure disputes.
Justice John-Mark Nuku Alifo of the High Court Commercial Division delivered the judgment on May 6, 2026, in Justmoh Construction Limited v Ashanti Port Services Limited (APSL), overturning an award that had ordered Justmoh to repay a mobilisation advance to APSL, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) partly owned by the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA).
The dispute traces back to the Boankra Integrated Logistics Terminal (BILT) Project, a proposed $330 million inland logistics hub in the Ashanti Region. In August 2022, APSL contracted Justmoh to execute Phase 1A of the project under a $111 million agreement. The relationship broke down over payment disputes, and APSL initiated arbitration in December 2023 before the Ghana Arbitration Centre after the Ghana Shippers’ Authority (GSA) terminated APSL’s concession for failing to achieve financial close.
The arbitral tribunal had ruled largely in APSL’s favour, ordering Justmoh to repay the $33.3 million advance with interest while awarding Justmoh approximately $7.1 million for completed works, leaving the construction firm facing a net liability of around $26 million.
The High Court set aside the award on three principal grounds.
On corporate authority, the court found that APSL’s board resolution authorising the arbitration was passed on January 24, 2024, more than a month after proceedings commenced on December 19, 2023. Relying on Section 200(2) of the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), the court held that a request for arbitration is equivalent to commencing court proceedings and requires proper authorisation at the moment it begins. The court rejected APSL’s argument that the later resolution ratified the chief executive officer’s earlier actions, ruling that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured retrospectively.
On procedural compliance, the court held that APSL failed to follow the multi-step dispute resolution procedure in the construction contract, which required disputes to pass through a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) and amicable settlement before arbitration could begin. The court reaffirmed that such conditions precedent are jurisdictional requirements that must be strictly satisfied.
On standing, the court found that the $33.3 million mobilisation advance had been paid not by APSL but directly by GPHA. Since APSL had not suffered the loss it sought to recover and held no assigned recovery rights from GPHA, the court concluded it lacked a sustainable cause of action. Any valid claim, the court reasoned, lay potentially with GPHA or the GSA rather than APSL.
The court awarded costs of GHS 100,000 against APSL and applied to the High Court under Section 58 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) to have the award set aside.
The ruling reinforces the supervisory role of Ghanaian courts over arbitration proceedings and serves as a pointed reminder that arbitral awards remain vulnerable to judicial scrutiny where foundational defects exist.
