Ghana Supreme Court Bolsters Mining Stability, Rebuffs Local Landowners Claims Against Newmont

In a decision that provides a significant victory for the international mining sector while setting a high bar for local land-rights activists, the Supreme Court of Ghana has dismissed a long-running legal challenge against Newmont Golden Ridge Limited. The ruling reinforces the state’s regulatory grip over mining compensation and clarifies the limits of traditional land use rights in one of Africa’s most vital gold-producing landscapes.

The case, Ntiamoah Dankyira & 2 Ors v. Newmont Golden Ridge Co. Ltd, centered on a 15-year mining lease granted to Newmont in 2010 in the Akyem Kotoku area of the Eastern Region. The plaintiffs, identifying as usufructuary (traditional land-use) owners, sought massive "enhanced compensation" and the direct payment of ground rents, arguing that the mining operations constituted a de facto compulsory acquisition of their property under the 1992 Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Pwamang, took a firm stand on the side of statutory procedure. The court ruled that under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear compensation disputes unless the matter has first been referred to the Minister of Mines.

“The determination by the Minister is... a condition precedent to the High Court having jurisdiction,” the court noted, effectively shutting the door on litigants who attempt to bypass administrative channels for direct judicial redress.

The ruling of the court gave a narrow definition of "compulsory acquisition."

In the eyes of the court, a mining lease is a temporary interference. “On the lapse of a mining lease, the land automatically reverts to the owners and does not belong to the state,” Justice Pwamang explained, distinguishing it from state-acquired land that "remains state land forever".

This distinction is a relief for the mining industry, as it prevents every mineral lease from being treated as a permanent state seizure, which would carry far more burdensome constitutional and financial liabilities.

The plaintiffs further argued that because they were effectively removed from their farms, their land had been taken by the state, triggering constitutional protections for "fair and adequate compensation" and direct access to the courts. The court disagreed, drawing a sharp legal line between compulsory acquisition, which involves the total and permanent extinguishing of an owner’s legal title, and compulsory taking of possession for mining.

However, Justice Dzamefe, in his Dissenting Opinion, stated that in the instant appeal, the plaintiffs were not consulted, their consent was not sought and without their knowledge, the Minister gave out their lands, including their farms, houses and other personal properties to the defendants, a mining company for gold prospecting and mining. 

In addressing Section 74(2) of the Minerals and Mining Act, he stated that the provision buttressed his decision that the law makers knew that the granting of a mining licence by the Minister is the same as compulsory acquisition of those lands as law makers do not choose words for nothing sake.

Justice Dzamefe, in defending his stance stated that the constitution as well as Act 703 used the same terminology “compulsory acquisition”. Therefore the two provisions cannot be interpreted differently to favour one group of people as against another group when they fall in the same circumstances before the law. As such, he agreed with counsel for the appellants that Section 75 (1) & (2) of Act 703 are inconsistent with and are in contravention of Article 20(2) (a) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional, invalid and of no legal effect.

The court also addressed the thorny issue of ground rent, a recurring flashpoint in Ghanaian land law. The usufructuary owners claimed that these annual payments should be made directly to them as the people actually using the land.

The court rejected this, affirming that ground rent for stool lands must be paid to the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands for the benefit of the Stools—the traditional allodial title holders. This reaffirms the traditional power structure in Ghana, where local farmers have rights to the surface of the land, but the title remains with traditional authorities and the minerals belong to the Republic.

The ruling is expected to bring a level of predictability to the Ghanaian mining landscape, which has seen increasing friction between local communities and large-scale miners. By affirming that the Minister of Mines must act as the primary arbiter for compensation disputes, the court has prioritized a regulatory-first approach over litigation.