A Kumasi High Court (Commercial Division) has declined jurisdiction in a legal suit in which the Omanhene of Twifo Atti Morkwa Traditional area in the Central region, Oseadeaye Kwasi Kanin V, together with Okyeame Yaw Asamoah, Ernest Ahirlu, and Wu Ming Ji, have been sued before it.
The Court, presided over by His Lordship Justice Samuel Faraday Johnson, further referred the case to the Chief Justice for directions for the determination of the suit.
The defendants have been accused of engaging in illegal mining on a legally acquired concession of a concessionaire.
The plaintiff is seeking to recover GH¢15 million jointly and severally against defendants for the quantity of gold so far mined from his concession based on geological intelligence and physical inspection of the gold mined in the said concession.
The plaintiff is also seeking general damages of GH¢20 million against the defendants.
The defendants are also faced with another legal suit in which nine mining companies are suing for recovery of GH¢90 million, being the quantity of gold mined illegally from the plaintiffs’ concession, in addition to a general damages of GH¢20 million.
However, defence counsel Philip M. Young, Esq., of Amponsa-Dadzie and Partners, a law firm in Cape Coast, per a motion on notice on September 23, 2024 raised an objection to the venue and sought an order for transfer of the suit to an appropriate forum in Cape Coast.
The defence counsel argued the Kumasi High Court by law is not the appropriate forum and prayed the court to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for direction and possibly heard at a neutral venue in Accra.
In an affidavit in support of the objection, it was argued that the plaintiff ought to have commenced the action at a High Court in Cape Coast, which has jurisdiction over the area in which the land lies, and not in a Kumasi High Court.
Lawyer Hanson Koduah for the plaintiff countered the defendants’ position and argued that the Kumasi Court has jurisdiction geographically to hear the matter on a full-scale trial basis, describing the defendants’ objection as materially incompetent, misconceived, and unsustainable both in substantive and procedural jurisdictions of the court.
He raised factors including convenience and security of plaintiff and witnesses for consideration of the court and prayed the court to dismiss defendants’ application for objection by thinking along the lines of plaintiff’s position.
But at the sitting of the court yesterday, His Lordship Justice Samuel Faraday Johnson granted the application of the defendants and declined jurisdiction on the strength of C.I. 47 Rule 3, which empowers a trial judge to refer a matter to the Chief Justice for directions as to which forum is convenient for the determination of the matter since the subject matter is situated in the Central region.
Lawyer Hanson Koduah welcomed the position of the court, saying “in the circumstances it is the best option.”
Meanwhile, the attention of the court has been drawn to the continued absence of the first defendant in court. Counsel for the plaintiff described the conduct of the first defendant as disrespectful for the Honourable Court.
