Send Us a Mailcepilghana@gmail.com

coment

Mon to Fri: 8am - 5pm+233-(0)591571351

phone

masthead

The facts of the Esther Osei and 7 Others V. Kibi Goldfields Limited is that the defendant a mining company acquired a concession in the Fanteakwa District in the Eastern Region of Ghana sometime in 2012. The Plaintiffs allege that even though the activities of the defendant have affected their farming activities as well as their properties the defendants have refused to enumerate their crops and therefore unable to compensate them adequately.

The Plaintiff therefore sued the defendant in 2015 at the High court, Koforidua for determination of adequate compensation for the destruction of their crops and farmlands by the defendant.
However, due to attempts at settlement by parties, Counsel suspended actual courtroom attendance for close to a year from November, 2017 to November, 2018. The need to go back to court arose after it became obvious that the defendant was only using the settlement process as subterfuge to delay the cases in court.

Hence, in the “Esther Osei case” these are the court attendance since November, 2018:
On the 21st November, 2018 Plaintiff counsel was in court but defendant counsel was not in court though the defendant was represented by an employee of defendant. The business for that day was to receive the witness statements of the Plaintiffs and their evidence-in-chief. The statement of defence of the defendant was thus struck out for want of prosecution. The Plaintiff’s lawyer was then ordered to file address on behalf of the Plaintiff by the 20th December, 2018 and the case adjourned to 8th January, 2019 for a date for judgement. The address was subsequently filed 3rdJanuary, 2019 even though counsel prepared and handed the said address to the Plaintiff representative before the scheduled date.

On the 8th January 2019 when counsel for Plaintiff got to court he was served with a motion on notice for an order to set aside the orders of the court given on the 20th November, 2018. Though counsel for defendant was not in court that day the court obliged the defendant due to the said motion and further adjourned to 23rd January, 2019 for the said motion to be moved.

However, on the 23rd January, 2019 the defendant was not in court to move the said motion hence for the second time the said motion was struck out for want of prosecution and case was adjourned to 21st February, 2019 for judgement to be delivered.

On the 21st February, 2019 the court finally delivered its judgement and Counsel, is delighted to report that in the case of Esther Osei & 7 Others judgement has been rendered in favour of the Plaintiffs. Download Judgement

Recent News - Inside

Latest News
on 08 April 2020

Center for Public Interest Law (CEPIL) h...

Some Civil Society Organizations (CSOs); Friends of the Nation, Center for...

Latest News
on 01 August 2019

Will extractive companies move away from...

Multinational companies regularly hire agents and fixers to help them win l...

Latest News
on 24 July 2019

Poor implementation of laws characterise...

Countries across resource-rich sub-Saharan Africa are failing to reap the b...

« »