Afrifa Vrs Ghana Revenue Authority & Anor [2022] GHASC 100 (30 November 2022)

Afrifa Vrs Ghana Revenue Authority & Anor [2022] GHASC 100 (30 November 2022)

The plaintiff failed to properly invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as he did not identify with sufficient particularity the constitutional provisions allegedly violated by the impugned sections of Act 915. The reliefs sought were vague, argumentative, and unsupported by cogent legal submissions. The challenged provisions either did not violate the Constitution or the issues raised were not proper for constitutional interpretation or enforcement. All reliefs were refused.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 100
Parties
Plaintiff: Kwasi Afrifa; 1st Defendant: Ghana Revenue Authority; 2nd Defendant: Attorney-General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
30 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Separation of Powers, Tax Administration, Jurisdiction, Fundamental Rights
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Tax Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Separation of Powers Tax Administration Jurisdiction Fundamental Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwasi Afrifa

Plaintiff

Ghana Revenue Authority

1st Defendant

Attorney-General

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff properly invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution
  2. 2 Whether sections 42, 52-54, 56-67, 72-76, 78, 80-82, 86-88 and 92-93 of the Revenue Administration Act 2016 (Act 915) are inconsistent with the Preamble, Article 1, Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to properly invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as he did not identify with sufficient particularity the constitutional provisions allegedly violated by the impugned sections of Act 915. The reliefs sought were vague, argumentative, and unsupported by cogent legal submissions. The challenged provisions either did not violate the Constitution or the issues raised were not proper for constitutional interpretation or enforcement. All reliefs were refused.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed