THE REPUBLIC vs. THE MINERALS COMMISSION (RESPONDENT) EX PARTE CASSIUS MINING COMPANY LTD. (APPLICANT) [2018]DLHC7335

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE MINERALS COMMISSION (RESPONDENT) EX PARTE CASSIUS MINING CO... [2018]DLHC7335

Date	2018-11-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO: MISC/0152/18
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7335

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

DR. DOMINIC AKURITINGA AYINE ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

JOSEPH AWAKPAKSA ESQ. FOR THE APPLICATION TO THE JOINDER.

[2018]DLHC7335
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE MINERALS COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE CASSIUS MINING
COMPANY LTD.<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO: MISC/0152/18&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
30TH NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>DR. DOMINIC AKURITINGA
AYINE ESQ., FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

JOSEPH
AWAKPAKSA ESQ., FOR THE APPLICATION TO THE JOINDER.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, J.<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>There
are two applications before the court. The first has to do with an application
for an order to stay proceedings to abide determination of the matter under
arbitration. This application is brought under sections 27 and 44 of the
Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703 and section 6 of the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act, 2010, Act 798. The application was filed on the 31st
October 2018. The second application, which was also filed on the 1st
November 2018, seeks an order of the court to join to the suit the applicants
mentioned in the motion paper.<o:p></o:p>The
main proceeding concerns an originating motion on notice for an order for
judicial review of certain decisions, actions and inactions of the Minerals
Commission as well as the Minister in charge of Mines.<o:p></o:p>The
main reasons canvassed in support of the application for stay of proceedings
can be found at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the supporting affidavit which
states that:<o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
on 23rd of August 2018, the Applicant filed an application for
judicial review seeking reliefs endorsed therein.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
in the application for judicial review, the applicant has severally made
mention of the fact that the matter is already pending in accordance with
section 27 of the Minerals &amp; Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) and clause 21 of
its prospecting License.<o:p></o:p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
I am advised and verily believe same to be true that the issues calling for
determination and reliefs being sought by the applicant in the judicial review
are essentially the same issue and reliefs that have been set before the
arbitration panel.<o:p></o:p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
I am advised and verily believe same to be true that the arbitration
proceedings are far advanced and thus would be concluded very soon.<o:p></o:p>9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
I am advised and verily believe same to be true that under the provisions of
the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) and the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act, 2010 (act 795), the Honourable Court can stay proceedings of
the instant action and refer or abide the determination of the matter at
arbitration.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent who decided not to file an affidavit in opposition responded by
legal argument to the effect that the provisions in respect of arbitration
under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010, Act 798 deals essentially
with private law whereas the issues in the originating motion on notice deals
with public law and for that matter, the court is better suited to pronounce on
them as against the arbitrators. <o:p></o:p>Section
6 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act provides that:<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;Application to court<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;Where there is an arbitration agreement
and a party commences an action in a court, the other party may on entering
appearance, and on notice to the party who commenced the action in court, apply
to the court to refer the action or a part of the action to which the
arbitration agreement relates, to arbitration.<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;The court on hearing an application made
under subsection (1) shall, if satisfied that the matter in respect of which
the application has been made is a matter in respect of which there is an
arbitration agreement, refer the matter to arbitration.<o:p></o:p>(3)&nbsp;The grant of an application shall serve as
stay of the proceedings in the court.<o:p></o:p>(4)&nbsp;Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties,
where proceedings in court are stayed for the purpose of arbitration</main>