Takoradi Gold sues Minerals Commission for unlawful assignment

Ghanaian owned licensed large-scale mining operator Takoradi Gold Ghana Limited is suing the regulator of the country’s mining industry, the Minerals Commission, for what it claims are attempts to divert two of its mining concessions to another company.

Takoradi Gold contends that the moves by the Commission to hand over a land that it has vested interest in without any reference to it is wrongful and unlawful.

According to the writ filed at the Tarkwa High Court, Takoradi Gold Ghana Limited avers that two mining concessions – CV597 and CV598 – are mining concessions originally granted by the colonial government to Paa Grant but the residue of the terms of those certificates of validity became assigned to one George Blay Kwofie by the administrators of the Estate of Paa Grant.

TGGL explained subsequently that George Blay Kwofie entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with them in respect of the said CV597 and CV 598 and the government of Ghana has since 1985 approved not only the said agreement but also the transfer of the mineral rights in those concessions to the Plaintiff.  The gold-mining company contends that as a result of that approval, the government by the then Sector Minister/ Secretary executed an agreement with its predecessor-in-title Goldex Prospecting N. Limited and granted her prospecting license No. 8147/86 in respect of both CV597 and 598

Takoradi Gold Ghana Limited says having acquired vested mining right in both CV597 and CV598, they have since discharged all their responsibilities to the government and to the knowledge of the 1st Defendant (Minerals Commission) invested over $3 million in carrying out prospecting activities on the subject Certificates of Validity (CV597 and 598).

The plaintiff contends that it has complied and/or continue to comply with the relevant provisions in the Minerals and Mining Act 2006 (Act 703) in so far as her prospecting activities on the 2 CVs are concerned, and that they have not at all surrendered their interest in the CVs to the 1st Defendant nor has the 1st Defendant written to revoke or cancel Plaintiff’s mineral right in those CVs.

TGGL stated in the writ that it became aware of the dubious moves by the Minerals Commission to divert its concessions to another company when it came across a publication of notice by the Commission in 2019, adding that that publication has the potency of infringing on the company’s mineral rights.

“The Plaintiff states that somewhere in February 2019, she stumbled upon a Publication of Notice made by the 1st Defendant that, that had the potency of infringing on her mineral rights in the 2 CVs and she duly by a letter dated 22/02/2019 addressed to the 1st Defendant and by that letter raised her protests and or opposition to any intention of the 1st Defendant to make a grant of any mineral right or interest in CV597 and CV598 to any other body or body of persons,” the writ stated.

Takoradi Gold Ghana Limited (Plaintiff) stated that the Minerals Commission has failed to respond to the company’s queries concerning the said action.

“Plaintiff avers that when 1st Defendant failed and or refused to respond to her concerns in the letter of 22/02/2019, she caused an official search to be conducted on the CV’s 597 and 598 at the 1st Defendant’s office.

“By the Minerals Cadastre Map dated 24/05/2021 as furnished Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant, the CV’s 597 and 598 (subject of this suit) have been shown as having been proposed by the 1st Defendant to be granted to the 2nd Defendant,” the writ indicated.

TGGL is praying the High Court to annul any possible arrangement and/or agreement between the Minerals Commission (1st respondent) and Mining and Construction Limited (2nd respondent).

“An Order declaring as null and void any agreement purportedly entered into between the 1st and 2nd Defendants in respect of Plaintiff’s CV’s 957 and 958 or any portion thereof,” the writ stated.

Below are the full claims being sought by Takoradi Gold Ghana Limited against the Minerals Commission and the Mining and Construction Limited:

Declaration that Plaintiff has subsisting right to prospect for and prove for gold in INSAMANKAW —SIMPA Concessions commonly referred to as CV597 and CV598 situate and lying at Kutukrom in the Nzema East District Assembly covering an area of 14.56 Sq. kilometres and bounded by the mining lease area of the Plaintiff, the Nzema East Small Scale Mining Licence area and the Prestea Huni-Va11ey restricted area.

An Order declaring as null and void any agreement purportedly entered into between the 1st and 2nd Defendants in respect of Plaintiff’s CV’s 957 and 958 or any portion thereof.

An Order of injunction restraining the Defendants and or their agents, workmen, assigns. Privies, and successors-in-title etc. from interfering with Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of her said licenced prospecting area being CV597 and CV 598 at Kutukrom.

iv. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from granting to, allocating to, demarcating for, releasing to and or any dealings in respect of the said CV597 and CV598 with the 2nd Defendant and or any other body or body of persons for the purpose of prospecting for gold or any other mineral right from within the said Concession.

V. Any other relief as may be just.