RICASBED GHANA LIMITED v. FORESTRY COMMMISSION
June 2, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HENRY KWOFIE JA (PRESIDING)
- P. BRIGHT MENSAH JA
- RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
June 2, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ricasbed Ghana Limited, granted teak-thinning rights by the Forestry Commission in 2001 and having paid a stumpage fee, was stopped for alleged illegal felling and fined, leaving 350 logs unremoved. The Commission’s Board later found the allegation unsupported and awarded compensation: a right to harvest 922 teak trees, with a permit expiring 31 October 2005. After missed deadlines and conflicting accounts, the Commission directed enumeration (Exhibit J) and received a report (Exhibit K), but still failed to permit harvesting despite mandamus orders from the Commercial Division of the High Court. The High Court awarded substantial general damages (cedi equivalent of USD 289,042.25) but rejected special damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the pre-compensation wrong irrelevant, affirmed liability based on post-Exhibit F events and contempt of court orders, upheld admission of Exhibit K, rejected FOB-based USD damages, and substituted nominal damages of GH¢ 30,000, dismissing the appeal subject to this substitution.
RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA:
This case now on appeal before us has a protracted antecedent. The Forestry Commission some time in 2001, granted to Ricasbed Ghana Limited the right to thin (fell) Teak trees at a place described as Compartment 6 of the Afrensu Brohuma Forest Reserve in the Offinso District of the Ashanti Region. Ricasbed paid at the time, 40 Million Cedis (now GH¢ 4,000) to the Commission as the requisite Stumpage Fee.
In the course of Ricasbed’s operation in the Reserve, the Commission, on an allegation that it had illegally felled 150 Teak trees stopped Ricasbed from the entire thinning exercise. By way of penalty, a fine of 18 Million Cedis (GHS 1,800) was imposed on it which was paid. At that point, Ricasbed had 350 lying logs which could not be evacuated due to the stoppage.
Subsequently, upon a petition to the Board of the Forestry Commission, it was decided, based on some investigation that the charge alleged leading to the stoppage was not backed by evidence. Accordingly, the Board decided by a letter dated April 14, 2005, to award Ricasbed a right to harvest an aggregate of 922 Teak trees to compensate for the fee paid, the fine imposed, as well as the 350 lying logs it could not evacuate. The Board’s decision was acted upon by a further correspondence allowing Ricasbed to fell the 922 from the Afrensu Brohuma Forest Reserve. By the self-same correspondence dated 8th July 2005, the permit to fell the 922 teak tress was to expire on 31st October 2005.
For reasons which turned contentious at the trial, Ricasbed was unable to harvest the 922 trees as at the expiration of the permit. In the controversies that followed between both sides, Ricasbed applied for, and successfully obtained an order of mandamus from the Commercial Division of the High Court to compel the Commission to permit the felling of the 922 trees from Compartments 5 and 6 of the Afrensu Brohuma Forest Reserve. A subsequent order of that court was obtained setting a time limit for compliance.
In the end, when there was still no compliance of the orders, Ricasbed, apparently deciding to forego the option of proceeding by contempt against the Commission, filed the instant suit.
Ricasbed’s case put shortly was that, the commission, failed and/or refused to allow it enter into the Compartments 5 and 6 of the Reserve to harvest the 922 Teak trees, which conduct was not only in contravention of the decision of its own board but also in defiance of the subsequent orders of