AMUAYI COMPANY LIMITED vs ADAMUS RESOURCES LIMITED [2013]DLCA16150

Date	2013-04-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/33/12
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA16150

C.J. HONYENUGA JA

DENNIS ADJEI JA

BABARA ACKAH YENSU JA

NANA BEDIATUO ASANTE

PHILIP NKRUMAH ESQ

[2013]DLCA16150
																																						<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" >AMUAYI COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ADAMUS RESOURCES LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 4.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. H1/33/12&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: 18TH APRIL, 2013<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;tab-stops:335.25pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">NANA
BEDIATUO ASANTE FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;tab-stops:335.25pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">PHILIP
NKRUMAH ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>C.J. HONYENUGA
JA, DENNIS ADJEI JA, BABARA ACKAH YENSU JA<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 4.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops:
center 242.9pt left 303.0pt 334.5pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">&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; JUDGMENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>The facts of the
case which culminated in this appeal looks complex but in reality it is not. To
me, based on the evidence on record the facts are simple and straight forward
and not what the trial High Court Judge took them to be. The facts as gleaned
from the evidence on record are that Amuanyi, Company Limited, the Plaintiff /
Respondent acquired mining concession known as Ebi concession from the
Government of Ghana. On 22nd February, 1996 the plaintiff entered
into a joint venture agreement with Vanquelin Mines Limited and the subject matter
of the agreement was the Ebi concession the plaintiff acquired from the
government of Ghana.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The terms of the
joint venture agreement have been well set out in the agreement which was
tendered as Exhibit ‘A’. During the subsistence of the agreement between the
plaintiff and Vanquelin Mines Limited, the latter entered into an agreement
with another company known as West Africa Mining Exploration Corporation which
is also known as Semafo. By the said agreement, Semafo acquired fifty percent
(50%) of the rights held by Vanquelin Mines Limited in the Ebi Concession and
the terms of the agreement was subject to the covenants and conditions
contained in the Joint Venture Agreement executed between Vanquelin and Amuanyi
Company Limited on 2nd February, 1996 that is exhibit ‘A’. On 1st
September, 1996, when the two (2) earlier agreements were subsisting the
plaintiff herein assigned its interest in the Ebi Concession to Semafo (Ghana)
Limited. This assignment was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff as exhibit
‘C’. Under exhibit ’A’ Vanquelin Mines Limited was to make some payments to the
plaintiff and when the plaintiff assigned interest in Ebi Concession to Semafo,
Semafo continued to pay the monies which Vanquelin Mines Limited was to pay to
the plaintiff under Exhibit ‘A’. Semafo made that payment to the plaintiff on
27th February, 1998; that is barely six (6) months after the
plaintiff had assigned its interest to Semafo. At a point in time, Semafo also
transferred its shares to Adamus Resources Limited. The plaintiff expected the defendant
for having acquired all the shares of Semafo to continue to pay the monies
which Vanquelin was paying under Exhibit ‘A’ but it refused to pay on the
premise that the plaintiff assigned its absolute interest in the Ebi Concession
to Semafo and did not have any subsisting interest in the Ebi Concession to confer
any right on it.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;