TaxLawGHby MSL Business School
MSL Business School verified Ghana tax case
Richard Amo-Hene v Ghana Revenue Authority, Attorney-General & Judicial Service
The Supreme Court upheld the 30% payment condition for a tax objection and construed the court rule as yielding to the parent Act, avoiding a duplicate payment barrier.
Published by MSL Business School through TaxLawGH.
Authority in context
Read the decision for the proposition the court actually resolved.
Still important for statutory payment conditions and the hierarchy between an Act and procedural rules, but it describes the pre-ITAB litigation route and should not be used as a complete statement of today's appeal process.
Parties
- plaintiff: Richard Amo-Hene
- defendants: Ghana Revenue Authority,Attorney-General,Judicial Service
Tax topics
- Tax objections
- Payment conditions
- Constitutional law
Material facts
- The plaintiff challenged section 42(5)(b) of the Revenue Administration Act, which generally required payment of 30% of disputed tax before an objection could be entertained, and Order 54 rule 4, which referred to a 25% payment condition for a tax appeal.
- The challenge alleged that the payment barriers impaired constitutional access to justice and created an inconsistent double burden.
Questions before the court
- Whether the statutory 30% objection condition was unconstitutional.
- Whether Order 54 rule 4 was invalid or imposed an additional 25% after compliance with the parent Act.
What the court held
- By a 6–1 majority, the Court dismissed the constitutional claims and sustained section 42(5)(b).
- The court rule had to yield to the parent statute; a taxpayer who satisfied the statutory condition was not required to pay a duplicate additional 25%.
Ratio decidendi
The legislature may attach a proportionate precondition to the statutory objection process, subject to statutory discretion and the governing scheme. Subsidiary procedural rules cannot contradict or add a second payment burden to the parent enactment.
Order
All reliefs dismissed by the majority.
Separate opinions
Pwamang JSC agreed that section 42 was constitutional but would have struck down Order 54 rule 4. That conclusion is dissent, not the Court's ratio.
Procedural history
Original-jurisdiction constitutional action in the Supreme Court.
Later treatment
Read alongside the same-day Export Finance and Afrifa judgments. Later statutory reforms created the Independent Tax Appeals Board; current procedure must be checked under the amended legislation.
Current-law relevance
Still important for statutory payment conditions and the hierarchy between an Act and procedural rules, but it describes the pre-ITAB litigation route and should not be used as a complete statement of today's appeal process.
Legislation considered
- Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915), section 42(5)(b)
- High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47), Order 54 rule 4
- Constitution, 1992
MSL Business School research layer
Detailed TaxLawGH analysis
A structured reading of the verified facts, issues, reasoning, result, later treatment and limits of the decision.
Decision identity and litigation posture
- Supreme Court decided Richard Amo-Hene v Ghana Revenue Authority, Attorney-General & Judicial Service on 2022-11-30.
- Relevant tax or litigation period: Constitutional challenge to the objection and appeal regime then in force.
- The recorded procedural path is: Original-jurisdiction constitutional action in the Supreme Court.
Material facts and evidential anchors
- The plaintiff challenged section 42(5)(b) of the Revenue Administration Act, which generally required payment of 30% of disputed tax before an objection could be entertained, and Order 54 rule 4, which referred to a 25% payment condition for a tax appeal.
- The challenge alleged that the payment barriers impaired constitutional access to justice and created an inconsistent double burden.
Questions the court had to answer
- Whether the statutory 30% objection condition was unconstitutional.
- Whether Order 54 rule 4 was invalid or imposed an additional 25% after compliance with the parent Act.
Holding, ratio and scope
- By a 6–1 majority, the Court dismissed the constitutional claims and sustained section 42(5)(b).
- The court rule had to yield to the parent statute; a taxpayer who satisfied the statutory condition was not required to pay a duplicate additional 25%.
- Ratio decidendi: The legislature may attach a proportionate precondition to the statutory objection process, subject to statutory discretion and the governing scheme. Subsidiary procedural rules cannot contradict or add a second payment burden to the parent enactment.
- The decision is procedural or jurisdictional in an important respect. It controls the procedural point actually resolved, but it does not settle a tax-merits issue that the court did not reach.
Order, remedy and separate reasons
- Formal order: All reliefs dismissed by the majority.
- Separate opinions: Pwamang JSC agreed that section 42 was constitutional but would have struck down Order 54 rule 4. That conclusion is dissent, not the Court's ratio.
Legislative framework
- Legislation applied in the case: Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915), section 42(5)(b); High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47), Order 54 rule 4; Constitution, 1992.
- The decision must be matched to the legislation and tax period actually before the court, rather than treated as a free-standing statement of current rates or procedure.
Later treatment and present-day use
- Read alongside the same-day Export Finance and Afrifa judgments. Later statutory reforms created the Independent Tax Appeals Board; current procedure must be checked under the amended legislation.
- Still important for statutory payment conditions and the hierarchy between an Act and procedural rules, but it describes the pre-ITAB litigation route and should not be used as a complete statement of today's appeal process.
- Related TaxLawGH research pathways: Tax objections, Independent Tax Appeals Board, Tax litigation procedure.
Limits and research caution
- No additional source qualification is required beyond the stated court level, procedural posture, statutory period and limits of the holding.
Practical research points
- Start with the court level and later treatment: Supreme Court; Read alongside the same-day Export Finance and Afrifa judgments. Later statutory reforms created the Independent Tax Appeals Board; current procedure must be checked under the amended legislation.
- Match the present facts to the precise issues and ratio rather than relying on the case name or outcome alone.
- Check the governing provisions for the relevant period, especially Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915), section 42(5)(b) and High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47), Order 54 rule 4.
- Separate the court's binding holding and order from obiter, dissenting reasons and questions the court did not reach.
- Confirm the procedural route, deadline and evidential burden under the law now in force before applying a historical decision.
- Use this case alongside TaxLawGH research on Tax objections, Independent Tax Appeals Board, Tax litigation procedure.
Institutional publisher
TaxLawGH is the Ghana tax and fiscal-policy knowledge system of MSL Business School.
This case brief forms part of MSL Business School’s maintained legal-research resource for Ghanaian tax law.