REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION 6, ACCRA & EXTON CUBIC GROUP LIMITED

YEBOAH, CJ

My Lords, this application was heard on the 14/01/2020 when by a majority of five with two dissenting, we dismissed the application and reserved our reasons. The facts leading to this application for review appear not to be in dispute.

The applicant, Exton Cubic Group Limited, filed a motion for judicial review before His Lordship Justice Ackaah-Boafo at the High Court, Accra, to quash a decision of the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources dated the 4th of September 2019. The basis for invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction for judicial review was that the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources had interfered with the Applicant’s mining concession activities in Kyekyewere, Mpasaaso and Kyereyase in the Ashanti Region. The applicant had contended that it had successfully applied for and obtained a mining lease for bauxite exploration from the Government of Ghana and the said Minister had unfairly written a letter purporting to cancel the lease the Government of Ghana had already granted. Injunctive reliefs were also sought from the court to restrain the Government of Ghana from interfering with the rights of the Applicant. Briefly, the High Court granted the application on the 8th of February 2019 in a lengthy ruling. The respondents to this review application, the Attorney-General, also resorted to Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari to quash the ruling of the High Court. The application filed in this court was granted on 31st of July 2019 and the said ruling of the High Court was quashed. In the orders made pursuant to the grant of certiorari, the court declared the lease for the bauxite exploration as pro tanto void and of no effect whatsoever.

The applicant on 30th of August 2019 filed this instant application to invoke this court’s review jurisdiction to review part of the ruling of the 31/07/2019. The Respondent herein opposed the application and has raised procedural objections on the basis that the review jurisdiction is inappropriate as no convincing grounds has been canvased before us to review the decision of the ordinary bench.

In arguing the application, Mr. Osafo-Buabeng, learned counsel for the Applicant pressed on us virtually the same arguments which had been considered in the ruling of the ordinary bench. We think that in review applications extreme care should be taken to avoid a situation whereby parties, especially the applicant, repeats the same arguments which the ordinary bench had already con