Amo-hene Vrs Ghana Revenue Authority & Anor [2022] GHASC 103 (30 November 2022)

Amo-hene Vrs Ghana Revenue Authority & Anor [2022] GHASC 103 (30 November 2022)

By majority, the Supreme Court held that Section 42(5)(b) of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) is not unconstitutional as it does not create an absolute bar to access to justice; the Commissioner-General's discretion to waive or vary the payment requirement, subject to judicial review, ensures proportionality and a fair balance between public interest and individual rights. Order 54 rule 4(1) of C.I. 47 is also not unconstitutional when interpreted to avoid double payment, as compliance with Section 42(5) suffices. The plaintiff's action was dismissed in its entirety.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 103
Parties
Plaintiff: Richard Amo-Hene; 1st Defendant: Ghana Revenue Authority; 2nd Defendant: Attorney-General; 3rd Defendant: Judicial Service
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
30 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment at Supreme Court
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed (majority); all reliefs denied.
Legal Topics
Access to Justice, Tax Dispute Resolution, Judicial Review, Constitutionality of Statutes, Limitation of Rights, Administrative Justice
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Tax Law Administrative Law Access to Justice Tax Dispute Resolution Judicial Review Constitutionality of Statutes Limitation of Rights +1 more

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Amo-Hene

Plaintiff

Ghana Revenue Authority

1st Defendant

Attorney-General

2nd Defendant

Judicial Service

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment at Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 42(5)(b) of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) is inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution for requiring payment of 30% of disputed tax before an objection is entertained.
  2. 2 Whether Order 54 rule 4(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47, requiring payment of 25% of disputed tax before an appeal to the High Court, is unconstitutional.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was properly invoked.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Supreme Court held that Section 42(5)(b) of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) is not unconstitutional as it does not create an absolute bar to access to justice; the Commissioner-General's discretion to waive or vary the payment requirement, subject to judicial review, ensures proportionality and a fair balance between public interest and individual rights. Order 54 rule 4(1) of C.I. 47 is also not unconstitutional when interpreted to avoid double payment, as compliance with Section 42(5) suffices. The plaintiff's action was dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed (majority); all reliefs denied.

Orders

  • All reliefs sought by the plaintiff are dismissed.