Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By
William Yaw Owusu
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
An Accra Circuit Court on Monday granted an
application for joinder filed by a third party in the case in which the
National Lottery Authority (NLA) is seeking to prevent the Veterans
Administration Ghana (VAG) from granting license to private lottery operators.
Luck Web Ghana Limited, an online gaming firm
successfully argued that it stood to suffer irreparable damage if the court refused
to hear their side of the raging matter involving the NLA and VAG.
The betting firm was issued a licence by the VAG under
Veterans Administration Ghana Act, (Act 844, 2012) to do online lottery but the
action of the VAG has incensed the NLA who are insisting that under the
National Lotto Act, (Act 722) of 2006, they have the sole authority to
regulate, supervise, conduct and manage National Lotto and to provide related
matters.
Main
Action
The
NLA therefore went to court, first asking for a renewal of an interlocutory
injunction restraining the VAG and its assigns or agents from “promoting,
sponsoring, launching and advertising any lotto or lottery or engaging in any
lotto or lottery.
In
the substantive suit, the court presided over by Mr. Francis Obiri has been
called upon by the NLA to among, other things, determine which body has the sole
right to regulate, supervise, conduct and manage national lotto or lottery in
the country.
According
to the NLA, the National Lotto Act, (Act 722) of 2006 has given them the sole
authority to regulate, supervise, conduct and manage National Lotto and to
provide related matters.
However,
the VAG is insisting that under Act 844, the law mandates them the power to
hold lotteries and cannot be stopped by the NLA from issuing license to other
entities in furtherance of the administration’s objective and said it has not
and does not intend to conduct national lotto.
It
is the contention of the VAG that under Section 22 (1) of Act 844, they have
the right to “hold lotteries, or raffles or similar games for the furtherance
of its objects in accordance with the NLA Act (2006) Act 722 and the Gaming
Act, 2006 (Act 721).
Section
22 (2) of Act 844 specifically states that “a person who holds lotteries,
raffles, or similar games under this Act without the express approval of the
administration commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine
of 100 penalty units or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to
both.”
Just
as the court was to decide on whether or not to grant the interlocutory
application by the NLA pending the final determination of the matter, Luck Web
filed a motion seeking to join the action and also to ‘arrest’ the court’s
ruling until it was also heard.
Luck Web’s
Motion
Moving
the motion, Ekow Dadson, counsel for Luck Web argued that in the interest of
natural justice, the court needed to hear them on the matter between the NLA
and the VAG since they had become a necessary party to the suit.
“The
court has a duty to hear us so that all matters in controversy shall be dealt
with once and for all.”
He
said the NLA in its reliefs is seeking an order to nullify permits issued by
the VAG to any other third party and said the court had the duty to hear such
parties that would be directly affected should the court grant the order.
“We
have a contract with the defendant. We have already invested about $400,000
into our operations. We have engaged about 50 people to work for us and have
also imported modern equipment for our operations which is the first of its
kind,” he argued.
“The
plaintiff’s reliefs when granted will interfere the enjoyment of the legal
rights of the applicant.”
NLA’s Opposition
Asking
the court to dismiss Luck Web’s joinder application, David Lamptey, counsel for
the NLA had argued that there was no law or provision in Act 844 which affected
the applicant (Luck Web) as far as the issues in dispute were concerned.
“Act
844 which granted the license does not recognize the applicant,” he said,
adding “the applicant has not been mentioned anywhere in the law.”
He
said license issued by the VAG under 844 which was not in accordance with Act
722 was what was in issue and Luck Web’s presence would never assist the court
to adjudicate the matters arising, urging the court to dismiss the application
with punitive cost.
The VAG
When
he took his turn, Kwasi Appiatse Abaidoo, counsel for the VAG told the court
that the VAG was remaining ‘neutral’ in the matter and said they did not intend
to make any argument.
Court’s Ruling
In
his ruling, the judge said that the NLA in its own pleadings had made references
to a third party and could not turn around to prevent such third parties from
joining the matter.
The
court said that once the NLA did not amend its pleadings, the applicant could
be considered as a third party and therefore any decision taken by the court
could affect the third party.
The
judge therefore ordered the plaintiff to serve Luck Web with the processes
within three days and adjourned the case until March 25.
No comments:
Post a Comment