OKOFO SOBIN KAN II AND OTHERS vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS [2014]DLSC2924

Date	2014-07-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J1/2/2012
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2924

W. A. ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

J. ANSAH JSC

S.ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

R. OWUSU (MS) JSC

J. DOTSE JSC

ANIN-YEBOAH JSC

P. BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

V. AKOTO-BAMFO JSC

J. B. AKAMBA JSC

ADDAE ABOAGYE ESQ. (WITH HIM OWUSU BANAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

DR. B. I. KORAY ESQ.(PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY ) FOR THE 1ST 2ND DEFENDANTS .

MRS. JOYCE RITA ADDAE- KUMI ESQ. FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT.

[2014]DLSC2924
																																						<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" >OKOFO SOBIN
KAN II AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.J1/2/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 30TH
JULY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ADDAE
ABOAGYE ESQ. (WITH HIM OWUSU BANAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>DR.
B. I. KORAY ESQ.(PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY ) FOR THE&nbsp; 1ST&nbsp;
2ND&nbsp;&nbsp; DEFENDANTS
.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

&nbsp;MRS. JOYCE RITA ADDAE- KUMI ESQ. FOR THE 3RD
DEFENDANT.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

W. A. ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING), J. ANSAH JSC,
S.ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, R. OWUSU (MS) JSC, J. DOTSE JSC, ANIN-YEBOAH JSC, P.
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, V. AKOTO-BAMFO JSC ,J. B. AKAMBA &nbsp;JSC <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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ATUGUBA, JSC <o:p></o:p>Facts<o:p></o:p>In
this case the five plaintiffs represent Ghanaian landowners, who share the
common trait that mining companies have been extracting gold for the Republic
of Ghana on their land. These companies include Anglo Gold Ashanti, Newmont
Ghana Limited, and Goldfields Limited (“The Companies”). <o:p></o:p>At
the moment the royalties from these mining operations are not paid to the
landowners, but rather collected by government agencies. The Ghana Revenue
Authority (the “GRA”), one of the Defendants in this case, serves the role of
royalty collector for the minerals at issue here. However, the Office of the
Administrator of Stool Lands, the institution charged by the Constitution and
by the Administrator of Stool Lands Act, 1994 (“Act 481), is charged with
establishing stool land Accounts, collection of royalties, and disbursing
revenues due and payable. <o:p></o:p>In
1992 a fund was established to provide a portion of Government mineral
royalties to host communities to support local development, address the
negative effects of mining in the host communities, to supplement the budget of
the mining sector institutions, and to fund research in the mining sector.
Accordingly, 20% of the Government mineral royalties are paid into the fund to
be managed by the Minerals Commission. The Commission was to disburse 50% of
this revenue to fund development projects in the host communities, and 50% to
District Assemblies, Stools, and traditional authorities in the ration of
50%/20%/20%.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiffs believe that the Companies are required to pay royalties that, by
definition and law, have to be paid to the owners of the lands on which they
carry out their mining activities. Further, the royalties that the Companies
pay to the Republic should and ought to go to the Plaintiffs, who hold the
stool lands in trust for their subjects. Lastly, the Plaintiffs maintain that
the GRA is unlawfully and unconstitutionally exercising the powers and
functions reserved by the Constitution to the 2nd Defendant.<o:p></o:p>The
issues in this case as per the parties memorandum of issues dated 7/5/2002 are
as follows:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the Plaintiffs have properly invoked the Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, and whether or not the Plaintiffs have taken advantage of the procedure
prescribed for redress of grievances(s) over apportionment of rents, royalties,
etc. under Section 8(2) of Act 481 before invoking the exclusive special,
original jurisdiction of the Court.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not revenues or incomes specified under Article 267 2(a)(b) and (c) and
clause 6 of the 1992 Constitution are public funds.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;