NTIAMOAH DANKYIRA & ORS v. NEWMONT GOLDEN RIDGE LIMITED

My Lords, the key issues that arise for our determination in this appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 16th December, 2020 are not complicated.

The plaintiffs/appellants/appellants, to be referred to as “the plaintiffs”, claimed to be the usufructuary owners of various parcels of land within lands owned by the Stools of Afosu, Yaayaso, Mamanso, Adausena and Hwekwae in the Akyem Kotoku Area of the Eastern Region. In the year 2010 the defendant/respondent/respondent, to be referred to as “the defendant”, was granted a 15 years mining lease by the Government of Ghana that covered the plaintiffs’ said lands. In compliance with the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the defendant engaged the plaintiffs and other persons whose lands fell within the area of their mining lease and negotiated compensations payable to them for disturbance to their surface rights in respect of their lands. The negotiations concluded and certain amounts were agreed upon to be paid to each claimant. The plaintiffs received their compensations and gave written receipts for the monies paid to them.

That notwithstanding, on 8th December, 2017, the plaintiffs filed the instant case in the High Court Koforidua, and by their amended statement of claim, they claimed for payment of additional compensation to the tune of 100% of the amounts they received multiplied by 15, as representing the years of the mining lease granted to the defendant. They also claimed that ground rent payable under Act 703 ought to be paid to them and not through the Administrator of Stool Lands to the Stools that own the allodial title over their lands.

The defendant entered appearance but did not file a statement of defence and rather filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, frivolous and otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. In an affidavit in support, the defendant deposed that the plaintiffs’ action was not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of Act 703 in accordance with which they acted throughout in their dealings with the plaintiffs.

The High Court in a reasoned ruling dated 24th October, 2019 upheld the motion by the defendant and dismissed the entire suit. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal and suffered the same fate there, hence this final appeal.

The relevant provisions of Act 703 that defendant relied on against the plaintiffs are the following;

**73(1) The owner or lawful occupier of any l