- Springfield Loses Final Appeal as Supreme Court Affirms Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
Ghana’s Supreme Court has dismissed a final appeal by Springfield Exploration and Production Limited, clearing the way for the enforcement of nearly $10 million in London Court of International Arbitration awards against the company in a dispute with Stena Unicon Offshore Services Ghana Limited.
The ruling in Stena Unicon Offshore Services Ghana Limited v. Springfield Exploration and Production Limited & Another reinforces Ghana’s pro-arbitration posture and clarifies the standards for enforcing foreign arbitral awards under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010, Act 798.
The dispute dates back to 2019, when Stena Unicon deployed the drillship Stena Forth to drill the Afina-1 exploration well for Springfield offshore Ghana. Although the drilling operation was successful, a payment dispute later emerged after Springfield allegedly failed to settle 15 invoices amounting to more than $8 million.
Springfield resisted the claim, arguing among other things that it was exempt from certain taxes and that the Covid-19 pandemic had affected its fundraising efforts, delaying payment.
The parties’ contract was governed by English law and provided for arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration Rules, with the seat of arbitration in London.
After the tribunal issued awards for the debt and legal costs in late 2021, Stena moved to enforce the awards in Ghana. Springfield challenged the enforcement, arguing that the arbitral process had breached its right to a fair hearing.
A central plank of Springfield’s argument was that the tribunal applied the 2020 LCIA Rules, which included an “early determination” procedure, rather than the 2014 LCIA Rules in force when the contract was signed.
Springfield contended that the use of the newer rules amounted to a material change that weakened its defence and violated its legitimate expectations.
The company argued that it had not been given sufficient time to prepare its defence, gather evidence and respond properly to Stena’s claim.
But the Supreme Court rejected Springfield’s argument.
The court held that, unless parties expressly agree to apply a specific earlier version of institutional arbitration rules, the rules in force at the commencement of arbitration will generally apply.
According to the court, the record did not show that the parties had expressly agreed that only the 2014 LCIA Rules would govern any future dispute.
The court also accepted the position that if the parties intended to lock themselves into the rules existing at the time the agreement was executed, they could have stated so clearly in the contract.
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court relied on authorities including China Agribusiness Development Corp. v. Balli Trading, where reference to an arbitration institution and its rules was treated as a reference to the applicable institutional rules at the time of the arbitration.
The court also referred to arbitration texts including Sundra Rajoo’s Law, Practice and Procedure of Arbitration and Russell on Arbitration, affirming the principle that amended institutional rules may apply unless the parties clearly exclude them.
The Supreme Court further held that the 2014 LCIA Rules already gave tribunals wide discretion to conduct proceedings expeditiously. On that basis, the court found that the early determination mechanism under the 2020 Rules was not a radical departure but a clarification of existing powers.
The justices also rejected Springfield’s claim that it had been denied justice, noting that the company participated in the London proceedings, attended video conferences and was represented by counsel.
“The Respondents were afforded more than ample opportunity and time to defend,” the court concluded.
The Supreme Court also addressed Springfield’s objection to the admissibility of evidence during the enforcement proceedings.
Springfield had argued that the Power of Attorney used by Stena’s lawyers was unstamped under the Stamp Duty Act and should therefore not have been relied upon.
The court rejected that argument, holding that such objections should have been raised at the trial stage.
Relying on Sections 5 and 6 of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323, the court held that objections to admissibility must be raised when the evidence is offered. An appeal based on allegedly erroneous admission of evidence will succeed only where a substantial miscarriage of justice is shown.
In this case, the court found that the disputed evidence did not affect the merits of the arbitration award being enforced.
The decision is significant for Ghana’s upstream petroleum sector and wider investment climate.
For international contractors, lenders and investors, the ruling signals that Ghanaian courts will not lightly interfere with foreign arbitral awards, especially where parties have freely agreed to international arbitration and participated in the process.
For Springfield, the judgment represents another legal setback at a time when the company and its founder, Kevin Okyere, continue to face wider scrutiny over commercial disputes, creditor claims and reputational battles.
The ruling also lands in a broader context where Springfield-related matters have attracted attention from state investigative agencies, the media and international commercial actors.
But this particular decision is narrower and more technical: it concerns the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards and the limits of resisting enforcement on procedural grounds.
The Supreme Court’s position is clear. Arbitration clauses must be taken seriously. Foreign awards will not be easily reopened in Ghana merely because the losing party disagrees with how the tribunal managed the proceedings. For Ghana, the judgment strengthens the country’s image as a jurisdiction that respects international arbitration, commercial certainty and contractual enforcement.
For investors watching the energy sector, that matters as in capital-intensive industries such as offshore drilling and petroleum exploration, confidence in dispute resolution is not a minor legal issue. It is part of the cost of capital, the pricing of risk and the willingness of contractors to work in frontier markets.
With the final appeal dismissed, attention now shifts to the satisfaction of the awards and the broader implications for Springfield’s ongoing commercial and reputational disputes.
