MICHAEL OWUSU PREMPEH v. MR. THANK & ANOR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendants over an alleged oral agreement to engage in small-scale gold mining, seeking monetary compensation and damages. The primary issues concerned the existence and validity of the contract. The Plaintiff's failure to acquire legal documentation and the illegal status of the mining activities led the court to refer to sections 83 and 99 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 Act 703. Past cases and statutes reinforced that courts will not aid parties involved in illegal acts. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and both parties were to bear their legal expenses.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff who describes himself as a businessman resident in Kumasi commenced the instant action against the Defendants who are also described as Chinese Nationals engaged in mining on 15/08/14. On 28/08/14, he amended his writ of summons and statement of claim. He sought to recover an amount of one hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand Ghana Cedis ( GH¢165,000.00); 15% share of gold mined for the period and a further order for the defendants to pay for the cost of reclamation of the land acquired.
The Plaintiff's case is that sometime in June, 2013, he entered into an agreement with the Defendant to mine gold in the Manso Nkwanta area. He asserted that he was to facilitate the acquisition of land for mining as well as pay for all expenses on the land inclusive of compensation to farmers. In return, he alleged that he was to be paid 15% of the gold mined. He gave details of the expenses totaling GH¢165,000.00 in paragraph six (6) of his amended statement of claim. He also averred that the Defendants have failed to reclaim the land which they caused him to acquire on their behalf and have used the proceeds to acquire excavator machines.
The Defendants by paragraph 2 of their statement of defence filed on 13/10/14 admitted that they are Chinese Nationals engaged in mining. That apart, they denied the Plaintiff's claim and contended that the concession they worked on at Tontokrom was given to them by one Kofi Brentuo. As such, they have no agreement with the Plaintiff who is an errand boy of one Nana Kwadwo Tonto. The Defendants further asserted that they acquired the excavator in issue long before they got to know the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any of his claims.
Two issues were set down for trial by the pre-trial judge, namely:
1. Whether or not there was a valid contract between the parties?
2. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim?
In his rather terse evidence-in-chief given on 26/02/2016, the Plaintiff testified inter alia as follows:
... I know the defendants. I dealt with them in a small scale mining business in 2013. The arrangements were oral but there are witnesses to it. We agreed that I go and look for the land and they will bear all the expenses involved. When I got the land, they asked me to bear the expenses and they will reimburse me later. About the compensation to be paid to them, I measured the land and it was nine acres. The land is at Manso Tontokrom. After measuring the nine acres