Zoom Ghana Ltd Vrs The Auditor General [2020] GHASC 71 (3 December 2020)

Zoom Ghana Ltd Vrs The Auditor General [2020] GHASC 71 (3 December 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the Auditor-General’s power to surcharge under Article 187(7)(b)(i) and (ii) does not extend to private persons or entities, and that Article 187(7)(b)(iii) can only apply where there is a finding of negligence or misconduct. Since the High Court found no fraud, negligence, or misconduct on the part of the Appellant, the Appellant is not amenable to surcharge under any limb of Article 187(7)(b).

Citation
Zoom Ghana Ltd Vrs The Auditor General [2020] GHASC 71 (3 December 2020)
Parties
Appellant/appellant: Zoomlion Ghana Limited; Defendant/respondent: The Auditor-General
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
3 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Reference From Court of Appeal to Supreme Court (constitutional Interpretation) / Determination of Constitutional Question Under Article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution
Outcome
Question answered in the negative; Appellant not amenable to surcharge under Article 187(7)(b) on the facts.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Article 187(7)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, Auditor General's Powers of Disallowance and Surcharge, Scope of Liability for Surcharge, Distinction Between Public Officers and Private Persons in Public Expenditure
Source Language
eng
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Finance Law Interpretation of Article 187(7)(b) of the 1992 Constitution Auditor General's Powers of Disallowance and Surcharge Scope of Liability for Surcharge Distinction Between Public Officers and Private Persons in Public Expenditure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoomlion Ghana Limited

Appellant/appellant

The Auditor-General

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference From Court of Appeal to Supreme Court (constitutional Interpretation) / Determination of Constitutional Question Under Article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Auditor-General can make a surcharge against a person other than a public officer under Article 187(7)(b)(i) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether Article 187(7)(b)(iii) extends liability to private persons in the absence of negligence or misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Auditor-General’s power to surcharge under Article 187(7)(b)(i) and (ii) does not extend to private persons or entities, and that Article 187(7)(b)(iii) can only apply where there is a finding of negligence or misconduct. Since the High Court found no fraud, negligence, or misconduct on the part of the Appellant, the Appellant is not amenable to surcharge under any limb of Article 187(7)(b).

Court Disposition

Question answered in the negative; Appellant not amenable to surcharge under Article 187(7)(b) on the facts.

Orders

  • Court of Appeal is directed to determine the appeal in accordance with this decision.