A Kumasi High Court will on October 28, 2024 deliver its ruling regarding its jurisdiction in determining a suit filed in Kumasi against Oseadeaye Kwasi Kanin V, Omanhene of Twifo Atti Morkwa Traditional area, in the Central region.
The court will determine the forum convenience of the suit, which has become the bone of contention for the trial of the case.
The first defendant wants the matter to be tried in Cape Coast as the appropriate venue, on the premises that the disputed land lies in a Mining concession at Twifo Atti Morkwa, and that the nearest High Court (Commercial division) is the High Court of Cape Coast, in the Central region.
Oseadeaye Kwasi Kanin also 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.
Philip M. Young Esq. of Amponsa-Dadzie and Partners, a law firm in Cape Coast, on Monday September 23, 2024 filed a motion on notice to raise an objection to the venue, and thus seeking an order for transfer of the suit to an appropriate forum in Cape Coast.
Defending his position, 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.
The plaintiff has objected to venue for the determination contending that the Kumasi Court has jurisdiction geographically to hear the matter on full scale trial basis describing the defendants’ objection as materially incompetent, misconceived and unsustainable both in substantive and procedural jurisdictions of the court.
He said several factors including convenience, security of plaintiff and witnesses are taken into account and prayed the court to dismiss defendants’ application for objection by thinking along the lines of plaintiff’s position.
Lawyer Hanson Koduah argued that the Omanhene had no right to enter plaintiff’s concession in the first place despite the fact that he is the Omanhene of that traditional area.
He said the concession had legally been granted to the plaintiff by the Minerals Commission under the laws of the land and has the right to enter and mine and not the Omanhene, and that is the law and must be respected to champion the fight and national effort against galamsey, which practice he described as an aggressive robbery with guns.
His Lordship Justice Samuel Faraday Johnson on hearing the two counsel adjourned sitting to October 28, 2024 to rule on their arguments while the parties maintain peace and harmony.
The plaintiff, Bright Kwabena Obeng, is seeking to recover a total of GHc35 million, including
seeking general damages of GHc20 million jointly and severally against the defendants, Oseadeaye Kwasi Kanin V, Okyeame Yaw Asamoah, Ernest Ahirlu and Wu Ming Ji.
They are accused of engaging in illegal mining on a legally acquired concession of a concessionaire.
The plaintiff has also applied for a declaration of the court seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, labourers and workers from interfering with the plaintiff’s 14.73 acre concession acquired by his Kadesh Mining Enterprise and duly licensed by the Minerals Commission.
The plaintiff claims the defendants have illegally and unlawfully trespassed on his concession and mined without authority about 85% of the entire 14.73 acres causing commercial disadvantage and economic loss to him.
The conduct of the defendants, he says also constitute an infraction and illegality under the Minerals and Mining Act 703 as amended by the Minerals and Mining Act 900, among other legal provisions.
