005079 Respondent State through the Ministry of Finance agreed to pay the Applicant. This payment is different from the 21.5m Euro’s payment made to Waterville Holding Ltd (BV|) Company for certified work done in the construction and rehabilitation of the stadia before the termination of the contract. This payment is the one relevant to the dispute before this Court. B. Procedure at the National 10.0n Level 19 April 2010, the Applicant, having not received payment of the 2% as agreed with the Ministry of Finance, instituted a suit at the High Court (Commercial Division) against the Respondent State. On 24 May 2010, the Respondent State having failed to file any defence, the High Court rendered a judgment in default in favour of the Applicant. 11. Following negotiations which led to an Out-of-Court Settlement, the default judgment was later substituted for a consent judgment and the Applicant was paid a total sum of Fifty-One Million, Two Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty and Fifty-Nine Pesewas (GHC 51, 283, 480.59) in fulfilment of the 2% claimed for raising funds for the project. 12.Following Ghana, the consent judgment, Mr. Martin Amidu, Ordinary Bench the former Attorney in his personal capacity’, of the Supreme Court and General of the Republic of invoked the jurisdiction of the challenged the constitutionality of the agreements entered into by the Respondent State and Waterville Holding (BVI) Ltd Company averred and the Applicant, in relation to the construction of the stadia. Mr. Amidu that the agreement was in breach of Article 181(5) of the Constitution of 1 Article 2(1) (b) of the Constitution of Republic of Ghana states that “A person who alleges that... any act or omission of any person, is inconsistent with, or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect” ...”