Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story has been updated to improve accuracy and clarity.

The Supreme Court has directed Ashanti Port Services Limited (APSL) to resort to the Court of Appeal in challenging the setting aside of a US$33 million arbitral award issued against Justmoh Construction in the Boankra Inland Logistics Terminal project.

APSL had gone to the Supreme Court seeking an order of certiorari to quash the ruling of the High Court in the matter.

In a decision delivered by a five-member panel, the Supreme Court held that “the applicant’s grievance will be better served in an appeal, which he admits he has filed.”

The court accordingly dismissed the application but made no order as to costs.

Ashanti Ports Services Limited says it will comply with the court’s directive.

The Boankra Inland Logistics Terminal Project is a flagship state infrastructure initiative designed to boost Ghana's transit trade and logistics.

Key stakeholders in the project include the Ministry of Transport, the Ghana Shippers’ Authority, and the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA.

In August 2022, APSL appointed Justmoh Construction as the main contractor for Phase 1A of the project.

In August 2023, the Ghana Shippers’ Authority terminated the concession agreement due to APSL's funding failures, leading to a state takeover.

In December 2023, APSL initiated arbitration and demanded that Justmoh refund US$33.3 million to it. An arbitral tribunal initially ruled in APSL's favour in late 2023.

In setting aside the tribunal’s award, the High Court identified critical procedural and legal flaws in APSL's actions.

The court found that APSL failed to obtain valid board approval before initiating arbitration. It also ruled that a subsequent board meeting in January 2024 meant to ratify the lawsuit was invalid because the board lacked the required representatives from key stakeholders such as GPHA and the Ghana Shippers’ Authority.

The court further held that ordering a refund to APSL would constitute unjust enrichment, because the US$33.3 million mobilisation fund was provided by GPHA and not advanced by APSL.

The court concluded that APSL had no legal right to claim a refund for money it did not spend.