[2014]DLSC5326 • July 30, 2014 • Supreme Court •
OKOFO SOBIN KAN II AND 4 OTHERS vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND 2 OTHERS
Plaintiffs, claiming to be allodial owners of stool lands on which mining companies operate, sought declarations that the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (2nd Defendant) is constitutionally mandated to collect royalties from minerals mined on stool lands, and that the Ghana Revenue Authority (3rd Defendant) is improperly collecting such royalties. The dispute centers on constitutional interpretation of Articles 257 and 267 regarding ownership and collection of mineral royalties from stool lands.
read moreMAJORITY OPINIONS SOPHIA ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC: This court is unanimous in its decision that the Plaintiffs have properly invoked our jurisdiction under Articles 2 (10 (a) and 130 (1) of the 1992 Constitution. I had the privilege to read beforehand the contrasting opinions of my respected brother, Atuguba and Dotse and I seem to agree with the conclusion reached by my brother Atuguba that the Plaintiffs’ action be dismissed. Upon my reflection and appreciation of the facts and submissions filed on behalf of the parties, I think in those circumstances I can properly express my own views as to the capacity in which the 3rd defendant, the Ghana Revenue Authority acts in collecting revenue from the exploitation of mineral resources in this context gold from stool lands, instead of the 2nd Defendant, the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands the body mandated under Article 267 to collect revenue, royalties etc accruing from stool lands. The facts, and issues for determination are.....