ABUSUAPANIN EMMANUEL OFORI-ATTA vs. NEWMONT GOLDEN RIDGE LTD AND OTHERS [2017]DLHC3314

Date	2017-03-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO: C1/07/2015
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3314

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2017]DLHC3314
																																						<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" >ABUSUAPANIN EMMANUEL OFORI-ATTA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NEWMONT GOLDEN RIDGE LTD AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, AKIM ODA]<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">

SUIT NO: C1/07/2015&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 31ST MARCH, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC
K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Plaintiff/Applicant
by this application seeks for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain
the 1st Defendant/Respondent from paying any royalties to any person
or group of persons, including chiefs and queen mothers, until the final
determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
an affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff, Abusuapanin Emmanuel Ofori-Atta,
claiming to be the head of the royal Agona family of Akyem Kotoku claim that
per his writ issued out of the Registry of the court he has sought among
others,&nbsp; the reliefs of an order to
restrain Newmont Golden Ridge from paying any royalties realized from mining of
gold or any other mineral to any person or group of persons including chiefs
and queen mothers and a further order for the payment of the royalties to the
Agona royal family or its lawful representative. To Plaintiff/Applicant what
has ignited the present application is what he deems to be indication by the
defendant to pay royalties to some individuals in respect of the lands for
Akyem Project Development. To applicant it is unlawful for such royalties to be
paid to any other person except the Agona royal family and hence its prayer
before the court.<o:p></o:p>&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;&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; <o:p></o:p>1st
Defendant has opposed the application through an affidavit in opposition
deposed to by one Robert Agbozo of the 1st defendant company. The 1st
defendant has raised a number of legal issues. One is that the payment of
royalties is imposed by statute as all royalties is supposed to be paid to the
government and that it had no obligation to pay any royalties to the
Plaintiff/Applicant. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Second
that it pays ground rent but that such payment by law must be paid to the Traditional
Authority and the District assembly whiles royalties are supposed to go to
Ghana Revenue Authority. And it has to be the Office of the Administrator of
Stool Lands which makes disbursement of Stool land revenue to stools and the
District Assembly. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order
25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 states as
follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The
court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which
it appears to the court to&nbsp; be just or
convenient to do so, and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon
such terms and conditions as the court considers just”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an application for
interlocutory injunction it is the duty of the applicant to demonstrate among
other factors that there is a right that ought to be protected at law or in
equity and that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that
compensation would be inadequate. See the following cases: OWUSU v OWUSU ANSAH [2007-2008] SCGLR 870 at 875, VANDERPUYE v NARTEY [1977] 1 GLR 428.<o:p></o:p>Did the applicant
establish a legal right that ought to be protected by the court for now: First,
Newmont Golden Ridge contends that by virtue of the provisions of the statute
it is not under any obligation to pay any royalties to the Plaintiff. In its
statement of case 1st defendant cites the Minerals and Mining Act,
2006, Act 703. Indeed section 25 of the Act 703 states as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Royalties
<o:p></o:p>25. A holder of a mining lease, restricted
mining lease or small scale mining licence shall pay royalty that may be
prescribed in respect of minerals obtained from its mining operations to the
Republic, except that the rate of royalty shall not be more than 6% or less
than 3% of the total revenue of minerals obtained by the holder. <o:p></o:p>Recovery
of debts <o:p></o:p>26. A fee, royalty or other payment which falls due
i</main>