Adamus Resources Pty Limited, the Australian company at the centre of the dispute over the 90 per cent shareholding in Adamus Resources Limited (Adamus Ghana), says it has appealed the High Court’s decision dismissing its application for an interlocutory injunction, insisting that the ruling did not finally determine the ownership of the disputed shares.
In a statement dated November 5, 2026, Adamus Australia sought to clarify what it described as misleading impressions created by recent media reports and social media publications suggesting that Nguvu Mining Limited and parties associated with it had secured a conclusive victory in the ownership dispute.
The company explained that the ruling being reported was delivered in May 2026 and concerned only an application for temporary injunctive relief. It maintained that the decision did not determine the substantive questions surrounding the ownership and transfer of the shares in Adamus Ghana.
The company further confirmed that it had filed an appeal against the ruling and that the appeal remained pending before the appropriate appellate court.
The original application was brought before the Commercial Division of the High Court in Accra by Adamus Australia, which sought to restrain Adamus Ghana, Angela List and Nguvu Mining Limited from transferring, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with the disputed 90 per cent shareholding pending the determination of its substantive action.
The company contended that it was the registered owner of the shares until November 2022, when they were allegedly transferred to Nguvu Mining without the necessary authorisation from its board. It consequently challenged the validity of the transfer and sought, among other reliefs, a declaration that it remained the lawful owner of the shares.
The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the transfer formed part of a legitimate corporate restructuring and that the applicant had failed to establish the legal requirements for an interlocutory injunction. They also challenged the authority of Alan Morrison, the applicant’s sole director, to institute the proceedings without the requisite corporate authorisation.
In its ruling delivered on May 7, 2026, Justice Doris Awuah Dabanka-Bekoe held that the conditions necessary for the grant of an interlocutory injunction had not been satisfied and dismissed the application. The court considered the principles governing interim injunctive relief under Order 25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), including the existence of a protectable legal or equitable interest, the need to preserve the status quo, the balance of convenience and the adequacy of damages as a remedy.
An interlocutory injunction is an interim remedy intended to preserve rights or prevent potential harm while the main action is pending. A court’s refusal to grant that relief does not, by itself, amount to a final determination of the underlying claims of ownership or the validity of the disputed transaction. Accordingly, the dismissal of Adamus Australia’s application means that it did not obtain the interim restraint it sought; it does not, on its own, establish that the disputed share transfer was legally valid.
The pending appeal introduces a further stage in the litigation. The appellate court will have the opportunity to consider the challenge to the High Court’s refusal of the injunction. However, the filing of an appeal does not automatically reinstate the injunction or prohibit the respondents from dealing with the shares. Any such restraint would depend on a further order of the appellate court. The substantive action and the competing claims over the share transfer also remain matters requiring judicial determination.
For stakeholders in the mining sector, including investors, regulators, employees and commercial partners, it is important to note this distinction because the dispute concerns corporate ownership and control of a mining company operating the Nzema Gold Mine in the Western Region. Until the relevant proceedings are determined, it would be premature to treat the May ruling as a final judicial pronouncement on who lawfully owns the disputed 90 per cent interest.
Adamus Australia says it respects the authority and independence of Ghana’s courts and intends to pursue its claims through the legal process. The immediate focus now shifts to the pending appeal, while the substantive questions surrounding the November 2022 share transfer remain unresolved.
