FREDERICK MENSAH vs. DIRECTOR NEWMONT AND NEWMONT GOLD GH. LTD. [2012]DLCA8650

Date	2012-11-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/72/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8650

A.ASARE-KORANG J.A (PRESIDING)

V.OFOE J.A.

C.J.HONYENUGA J.A

DR. J.E. OPPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. SEY & CO. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2012]DLCA8650
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >FREDERICK MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>DIRECTOR NEWMONT AND NEWMONT GOLD GH. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.H1/72/2012&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 15TH
NOVEMBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DR.
J.E. OPPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
SEY &amp; CO. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

A.ASARE-KORANG
J.A (PRESIDING), V.OFOE J.A., C.J.HONYENUGA J.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE, J.A.:<o:p></o:p>The
defendant acquired a mining lease from the government of Ghana in Adausena in
the New Abirem District of the Eastern Region. By law it is obliged to pay
compensation to persons, including farmers, who found themselves on the
acquisition area and were to be displaced. The plaintiff, a farmer, happens to
be one of these persons. It is the accepted practice that the farmer affected,
in this case the plaintiff, the chief farmer of the area, officials of the
defendant company and an officer of the Land Valuation Board approves of the
type and quantities of the crops found on the affected farmers land. What was
found on plaintiff’s land and signed by these personalities was tendered as
exhibit A. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant in the trial
court and indeed in this court is in respect of some 5000 nursery seedlings
which plaintiff claims he is entitled to be compensated for. The defendant does
not intend paying the plaintiff this demand because it is its case that there
is an accepted mode of payment for seedlings which is not what the plaintiff is
demanding. The defendant contends that the payment is on acreage basis. The
matter had to go to the Nkawkaw High Court for determination. <o:p></o:p>By
his writ of summons, which was home brewed i.e. issued by the plaintiff
personally, he asked for an order from the court directed at the defendant to
pay compensation to him as per the valuation report of his farm.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Defendants’ case on the pleadings is that it
is true that they found 5000 seedlings and other crops belonging to the
plaintiff on the land. These were duly recorded and that is what is recorded in
exhibit A. They were to facilitate the movement of the seedlings to any place
of choice for the plaintiff but he refused insisting he was entitled to be paid
compensation for these 5000 seedlings which are not crops planted on the land. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The trial court agreed and gave him judgment
directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff compensation for all crops
including the 5000 seedlings, rejecting the acreage mode of payment offered by
the defendant.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
trial judges reasoning for this conclusion can be noted under two heads. Firstly
that it was not right for the second defendant to object to the planting of
5000 seedlings on the plaintiff’s 5 acre piece of land on the grounds that the
seedlings were too many to occupy that size of land. Such objection the trial
judge found unreasonable because it was the view of the trial court that it was
the plaintiff’s right to decide on the most economic use for his land and not
the defendant. Secondly the purpose of the stock taking was to identify and
record the crops growing on plaintiff’s land and since counsel for the
defendant in his address admitted that the 5000 seedlings are crops then the
seedlings qualify to be paid compensation like any other crop. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>The
defendant does not agree with the trial judge and has appealed against the
judgment on the grounds that the judgment is against the weight of evidence and
that the order of the trial court that it pays compensation for all the 5000
seedlings is arbitrary and has no basis in law or the facts.<o:p></o:p>The
aut</main>