THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION (6) ACCRA, [EX PARTE: ATTORNEY-GENERAL (APPLICANT) EXTON CUBIC GROUP LTD INTERESTED PARTY] [2019]DLSC6520

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION (6) ACCRA, [EX PARTE: ATTORNEY... [2019]DLSC6520

Date	2019-07-31
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/40/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6520

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

KOTEY JSC

GODFRED YEBOAH DAME (DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL) FOR THE APPLICANT WITH HIM MRS STELLA BADU (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY)

MISS VERONICA ADIGBO (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY) AND MISS YVONNE BANNERMAN (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY)

REINDORF TWUMASI ANKRAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY WITH HIM GLORIA AMOAH

[2019]DLSC6520
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION (6)
ACCRA, [EX PARTE: ATTORNEY-GENERAL (APPLICANT) EXTON CUBIC GROUP LTD
INTERESTED PARTY]<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/40/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 31TH JULY,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GODFRED
YEBOAH DAME (DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL) FOR THE APPLICANT WITH HIM MRS STELLA
BADU (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY), MISS VERONICA ADIGBO (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY) AND
MISS YVONNE BANNERMAN (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

REINDORF TWUMASI ANKRAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY
WITH HIM GLORIA AMOAH<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING), DOTSE
JSC, YEBOAH JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, KOTEY JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JSC :-&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The applicant in this proceeding is praying for an
order of certiorari directed at the High Court, General Jurisdiction (6), Accra
presided over by His Lordship Ackaah – Boafo, J. to quash the ruling of that
court dated the 8th of February 2018 in suit No. GJ/1424/17 entitled
the Republic v. Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, Exparte Exton Cubic
Group Limited and the Attorney-General, Interested Party. In the said suit, the
interested party herein had applied to the said High Court for certiorari to
quash a letter written by the Minister for Lands and Natural Resource, dated 4th
September, 2017, revoking the Mining Leases purportedly granted to the interested
party. In its ruling dated the 8th of February 2018, the High Court
found the Minister’s letter revoking the Mining Leases unlawful and for that
reason quashed the letter by an order of certiorari. It is this order of the
High Court that has become the subject of this application.<o:p></o:p>The brief facts of the case are that the interested
party, Exton Cubic Limited, on the 29th October 2016 applied for
Mining Leases in respect of three areas in the Ashanti Region; namely
Kyekyewere- 56.64 sq km; Mpasaso- 22 sq.km; and Kyirayaso- 32.68 sq. km. It is
the case of the applicant herein that these three Mining Leases constitute
about seventy-nine percent (79%) of the nation’s known bauxite resources. The
Minerals Commission on 10th November 2016 offered the Mining Leases
to the interested party, who proceeded to pay for them on the 12th
December 2016. The processes filed in this application, disclosed that no
notification of the application by the interested party was published in the
Gazette, to enable such Gazette exhibited at the offices of the District
Assembly, which had jurisdiction over the area covering the three leases. The
chief or allodial owner of the land was also not notified of the Interested Party’s
application. <o:p></o:p>The processes filed further disclosed that the
Minerals Commission made the offer to the interested party before forwarding
its recommendations on the applications to the Minister for Lands and Natural
Resources, contrary to sections 12 and 13 of the Minerals and Mining Act, Act
703. It was also alleged that the interested party failed to obtain the
requisite Forestry Commission and Environmental Protection Permits, before
attempting to commence mining operations in the areas. Then on the 4th
September 2017, the Minister for Lands and Natural Resource, wrote to revoke
the three leases granted the interested party, citing several infractions of
the law committed in the grant of the three Mining Leases. This was the letter
quashed by the High Court, Accra, in the ruling dated the 8th
February 2018, which is the subject of this application.<o:p></o:p>In his statement of case filed in support of the
application, learned Counsel for the applicant, the Deputy Attorney- General
argued that the grant of the three Mining Leases to the interested party was
void, as the processes preceding the grant were in breach of the Constitution
and several provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, Act 703, as well as, the
Minerals and Mining Regulations, 2012, LI 2176. Indeed, the main thrust of
applicant’s case, is that the three leases granted to the interested party
violated article 268 (1) of the Constitution, as the leases had not been
ratified by Parliament. The applicant also posited that the grant of the three
leases violated several provisions of the Mining and Minerals Act, Act 703.
These violations included the lack of publication of notice of the pendency of
the application for the Mining Leases in the Gazette, and the subsequent
notification of the application to the Chief or allodial owner, as well as exhibiting
notice of the Gazette at the offices of the District Assembly, as required by
section 13 of Act 703 and Regulation 177 of L.I.2176. <o:p></o:p>The applicant further argued that the grant of the
three Leases were in breach of sections 12 and 13 of Act 703, in that the
Minerals Commission offered the leases to interested party, before recommending
the applications to the Minister for Mines and Natural Resources. The law provided
that the recommendation shall first be made to the Minister, who is required to
take a decision on the recommendation and inform the interested party within
sixty (60) days from date of receipt of the recommendation. The applicant also
alleged that interested party failed to procure the necessary Forestry
Commission and Environmental Agency Permits, before it attempted to carry out
its mining operations, contrary to section 18 of Act 703. The applicant finally
argued that, interested party’s decision to initiate proceedings at the High
Court was wrong in law, because section 27 of Act 703 required that disputes
arising under the Act was to be referred to Arbitration and not litigation in
court.<o:p></o:p>