THE REPUBLIC VS GHANA NATIONAL GAS COMPANY LTD EX PARTE KINGS CITY DEVELOPEMNT COMPANY

This is an application for judicial review filed by the Applicant for an order of mandamus against the Respondent for the payment of a sum certain as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land belonging to the Applicant.

Due to the nature of the claims of the parties involved and the issues to be addressed in disposing of this matter, I would take my time to explain in detail the genesis of this action.

In doing so I have given due consideration to the affidavit of the Applicant in support of the application and that of the Respondent in opposition as well as the statement of case of both parties.

Due regard has also been given to the affidavit of the Interested party, the Lands Commission.

I have also carefully considered the oral arguments of counsel for all the parties setting out the various positions of the parties.

Of the parties in this action, the Applicant is a limited liability company, engaged in the business of construction and development of integrated mixed-use city projects in Ghana.

The Respondent is also a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Ghana and carrying on the business of building and operating infrastructure for the gathering, processing, transportation and marketing of natural gas resources whiles the Interested Party is a statutory agency whose function includes overseeing the sustainable development, management and administration of public and vested lands in Ghana.

The facts of the case, as can be gleaned from the thirty-five (35)paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Applicant’s Project manager, is that, as a development and construction outfit, it had obtained land of approximately 2, 513. 654 acres from the Takoradiman Stool.

These lands are situate at Whindo, Mpatado, Assakae and Adientem all in the Western Region of the Republic of Ghana.

According to the Applicant, it obtained all the requisite permits in order to start construction of its project (see Applicant’s Exhibit “KDC 1”) and were in effective occupation and possession of same until in or about July 2012 when it noticed the acts of the Respondent (the laying of gas pipelines through portions of the land in dispute) which acts were inconsistent with Applicant’s possession.

Subsequently, an Executive Instrument (E. I No. 47) was issued on July 12, 2014 declaring those affected portions of Applicant’s lands together with some others compulsorily acquired in the public interest (see Exhibit “KDC 3”). The crux of the claim of the A