OKOFO SOBIN KAN II AND 4 OTHERS vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND 2 OTHERS [2014]DLSC5326

Date	2014-07-30
Suit No.	WRIT No. JI/2/2012
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC5326

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]DLSC5326
																																						<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 4 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[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">

</div>COUNSEL:<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 1ST 2ND 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">

MRS. JOYCE
RITA ADDAE- KUMI ESQ. FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:
0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MAJORITY OPINIONS<o:p></o:p>SOPHIA
ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC:<o:p></o:p>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. <o:p></o:p>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. <o:p></o:p>The facts, and issues for
determination are fully and ably set out in the opinions of my eminent brothers
and I need not set them out here. The position of the Supreme Court on the role
of the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands and the Lands Commission was
clearly set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Omaboe III and Others v.
Attorney-General and Lands Commission [2005-2006] SCGLR 579 <o:p></o:p>The Plaintiffs claim to be
allodial owners of land on which some mining companies have their concessions
and have been extracting gold. The Plaintiffs are seeking from this Supreme
Court a declaration that the 2nd Defendant, the Office of thee
Administrator of Stool lands who is mandated to collect royalties in the nature
of income or capital from stool lands is the constitutionally mandated to
collect royalties from the minerals mined in stool lands in Ghana under Article
267 clauses 2 (a) (b) and (c) and clause. Further Plaintiffs seek to have the 3rd
Defendant the Ghana Revenue Authority restrained from collecting royalties from
the various mining companies which they claim is contrary and in contravention
of the clear words of Article 267 clauses 2 (a) (b) and (c)and clause 6.<o:p></o:p>Chapter 21 of the
Constitution 1992 deals with Land and Mineral Resources. Article 267 which
deals with Stool and Skin Lands falls under this Chapter. One canon or maxim of
interpretation is that there is a presumption of consistency among the various
parts of the same document and that one should as far as possible avoid an
interpretation that would lead into internal inconsistency. In applying this
principle in construing the constitution the Court must look at all the
provisions under this chapter as a whole.<o:p></o:p>It seems to me that the
real issue for determination before us turns on who owns the mineral resources
for which mining companies pay royalties, who is mandated to collect such
mineral royalties; and how it is to be disbursed. It should be pointed out that
Article 267 does not contain the words ‘mineral royalties’ as described by the
plaintiffs; but simply ‘royalties’ from stool lands. <o:p></o:p>In relation to mineral
resources, Article 257(6) of the 1992 Constitution under chapter 21 provides:<o:p></o:p>“Every mineral in its natural state
in, under or upon any land in Ghana, rivers, streams, water course throughout
Ghana, the exclusive economic zone and any area covered by the territorial sea
or continental shelf is the property of the Republic of Ghana and shall be
vested in the President on behalf of, and in trust for the people of Ghana.”
[e.s]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is noted though, that Article 257 is headed
‘Public Lands’, the side notes says Public Lands and Other Public Property. From
the reading of the whole of Article 257, it is evident that only clause (6)
deals with public property which is natural res</main>