Felicia Adjul and three others (Plaintiffs) v. The Attorney-General and nine others (Defendants) Country/Territory Ghana Type of court National - higher court Date Jul 30, 1996 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name High Court of Justice, Ghana Seat of court Accra Judge Ghadegbe, N., S. Reference number No. Misc. 811/96 Language English Subject Legal questions, Waste & hazardous substances Keyword Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings International agreement-implementation Court/tribunal International organization Abstract The plaintiff filed suit claiming relief from nuisance committed during the construction of an open sewerage system at Tema, Ghana. This work was undertaken under funding granted to the Government of Ghana by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The World Bank). The World Bank contended that the court did not have jurisdiction because Ghana had an obligation to recognize its immunity from suit unless waived. The plaintiff argued that there should be no immunity where the wrong done affected private citizens. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction. It held that the test which one had to apply in the application was whether the action arose from an area of activity “necessary for the Bank to perform its functions”. It decided that this was not the case. If one should hold otherwise, it would expose the Bank to numerous actions arising only out of the fact that the bank had made some aid available to a member state or a signatory to the Vienna Convention. One should take into consideration the impact of the Bank in the economy of many nations today to see how likely the Bank if its immunity was not preserved would have to be put to trouble defending multiple actions which no doubt would stifle its operations. The court was of the view that it was with this intendment that the provisions on jurisdictional immunity were made and it could see no reason which compelled it to say that these provisions should not apply to the intent action only because the alleged cause of action which is in nuisance affected private persons. Since the action was against several defendants, the court did not think that the plaintiff was likely to be without a redress. Full text Nation.Deci._Vol_3=prelims.pdf Available in UNEP/UNDP/Dutch Government Joint Project on Environmental Law and Institutions in Africa, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters related to Environment, National Decisions, Volume III, Page 48