David vs Goliath: Small-scale miner beats Shaanxi lawyer in landmark win before Chief Justice

The committee, led by the Chief Justice, has directed the lawyer to withdraw his appearance for the Chinese company.

Asmall-scale miner, Charles Taleog Ndanbon, has secured an underdog victory in Ghana’s capital, Accra, defeating Joseph Awakpaksa, lawyer for Chinese-controlled Shaanxi Mining (Ghana) Limited, before a disciplinary committee chaired by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.

The two parties appeared before the committee after the gold miner filed a complaint with the General Legal Council (GLC) against the lawyer.

The complaint was about the lawyer’s involvement in a civil case Ndanbon initiated in 2023 against Shaanxi, now rebranded Earl International Group (Ghana) Gold Limited, and the company’s chief executive officer, Wei Xing.

Charles Taleog Ndanbon.

The court case, which is still ongoing, was filed at a High Court in Bolgatanga, capital of Ghana’s Upper East Region, over an alleged breach of agreement, with Awakpaksa representing the Chinese company against Ndanbon.

In the 5-page complaint, Ndanbon revealed that Awakpaksa had represented him and the same Chinese company together in some court cases in the past.

He also said that he had a close client-counsel relationship with the lawyer that gave Awakpaksa access to inside information about his private firm, Yenyeya Small-Scale Mining Group.

Their friendship went as far as Awakpaksa visiting him at his private residence on several occasions, mostly eating fufu with extra-large tilapia and drinking Johnnie Walker Red Label on top of the food during the visits, according to him.

Joseph Awakpaksa was with Zoe Akyea & Co before he moved to Treecross Law Firm.

A worried Ndanbon told the committee that Awakpaksa’s representation of his opponent (the Chinese company) in the ongoing case at the High Court in Bolgatanga would amount to conflict of interest.

He said so because he believed his former lawyer friend would arm the Asian company against him with the information he gathered about his firm during their close association.

The verdict

The committee listened to the lawyer, too. He denied all the allegations the miner levelled against him.

Awakpaksa told the committee he never received any documents directly from Ndanbon’s firm about its relationship with Shaanxi. He stressed that all documents or court processes he obtained came from the Chinese company to him as their counsel.

Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.

He said he met Ndanbon for the first time in 2018, when he represented the Chinese company and his lawyer colleague, Mohammed Tahiru Nambe, represented Ndanbon in a case with Suit No. C1/02/2018.

He stated that he never represented Ndanbon’s firm Yenyeya. But, according to the committee’s report, he admitted representing Ndanbon in a case in which the author of this report (Edward Adeti) stood as a witness for the state.

After listening to his submission, the disciplinary committee directed him to withdraw his representation of the Chinese company in the lawsuit.

“The committee directed the respondent to withdraw his representation of Earl International which is the successor of Shaanxi. The respondent agreed to withdraw his representation,” the report, signed by the Chief Justice, said.

Charles Taleog Ndanbon is the Managing Director of Yenyeya Small-Scale Mining Group.

It was a ‘David-versus-Goliath’ affair because Ndanbon did not appear before the lawyer-filled committee with his own counsel, Juliet Dale Agboh, and yet he effectively argued his points and emerged victorious against a lawyer.

‘Maybe they wrote their own English’— Awakpaksa reacts after committee’s verdict

Contrary to what is stated in the committee’s report, Awakpaksa said he was not “directed” to withdraw his representation but only “advised” to do so.

“I told them I was going to consider whatever they told me and do the needful. That’s what I told them. Maybe they wrote their own English. But I told the panel that I was going to consider the advice they had given me. That is what I told them.

“So, I’m also making a consideration as to whether I should withdraw or not. If I decide and I want to exercise my right to practise as a lawyer when I’m not in any conflict [sic], I can go and do it. He can take me to wherever he wants to take me to,” he told this writer.

He added: “He told the panel I come to his house, and he feels that I have probably given [out] information.”

Joseph Awakpaksa.

Ndanbon did not just win the case before the disciplinary committee. He won it by referencing three rules of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020, to support his complaint against Awakpaksa.

Rule 21 (1) says:

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which the interest of that person is materially averse to the interest of the client.

Rule 21 further states in Section 2 that:

A lawyer shall not represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer was associated had, to the knowledge of the lawyer, previously represented a client (a) whose interest is materially averse to the interest of that person; (b) and about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by these Rules that is material to the matter.

And Section 3 of Rule 21 makes it clear that:

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not (a) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client, except as permitted by these Rules with respect to the client, or when the information has become generally known; or (b) reveal information relating to the representation of the client except as permitted by these Rules.

Ndanbon’s firm operates a 25-acre licensed concession in Talensi, a district in the Upper East Region. He invited the Asian company from China to the district in 2008 to provide technical support service to his firm.

He and Wei Xing (Shaanxi CEO) had a disagreement over an agreement and parted ways. That is why he is in court against the foreign company and Wei Xing.

Charles Taleog Ndanbon (L) and Wei Xing before they fell away with each other over an agreement they signed.

The case is set to resume at High Court ‘1’ in Bolgatanga on Thursday, 11 December, 2025. It is uncertain whether Awakpaksa will appear for the Chinese company on that day.

But he is most likely to appear again before the General Legal Council. Another person has hinted at plans to file a complaint against him soon.

The verdict of the committee.

Source: Edward Adeti/Media Without Borders/mwbonline.org/Ghana