TaxLawGHby MSL Business School
MSL Business School verified Ghana tax case
Ivy Morrison v Ghana Revenue Authority
The Court refused an interlocutory injunction against alleged preferential customs benchmark values.
Published by MSL Business School through TaxLawGH.
Authority in context
Read the decision for the proposition the court actually resolved.
Useful for interim-remedy standards in customs-policy litigation. This is an interlocutory ruling, not a merits judgment on benchmark valuation, discrimination or revenue loss.
Parties
- case Title: Ivy Morrison v Ghana Revenue Authority
Tax topics
- Customs valuation
- interlocutory injunction
Material facts
- The applicant, a frozen-food importer, alleged that selected traders received preferential benchmark values that distorted competition.
- GRA said benchmark values were a risk-management tool and that graduated valuation had been discontinued on 17 October 2018 with implementation of Cargo Tracking Notes.
Questions before the court
- Whether the evidence showed irreparable injury requiring interim protection.
- Whether the Court should restrain a practice no longer in operation.
What the court held
- No reliable evidence connected the alleged policy to irreparable injury to the applicant's business.
- A court does not issue a vain injunction against non-existing conduct; the application was refused.
Ratio decidendi
Interlocutory relief against a revenue authority requires evidence of serious, inadequately compensable harm and an enforceable status quo. Allegation alone is insufficient, especially when the challenged policy has ceased.
Obiter
- The Court left the substantive discrimination and fairness questions for trial.
Order
Interlocutory injunction dismissed.
Separate opinions
Not applicable to this single-judge High Court decision; no separate opinion is recorded in the reviewed copy.
Procedural history
Morrison filed a substantive writ in November 2018 and sought interim restraint while the customs-valuation claims remained pending.
Later treatment
This is an interlocutory injunction ruling, not a final determination of the customs-valuation claims. No later public merits judgment or appellate decision in the action was located in the searches completed through 19 July 2026. That negative public-record search does not establish that the underlying writ ended or that no unreported proceeding exists.
Current-law relevance
Useful for interim-remedy standards in customs-policy litigation. This is an interlocutory ruling, not a merits judgment on benchmark valuation, discrimination or revenue loss.
Legislation considered
- Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), sections 10 and 14
- C.I. 47, Order 25 rule 1
- WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (as discussed by the parties)
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
- High Court (Commercial Division), Accra decided Ivy Morrison v Ghana Revenue Authority on 2019-01-21.
- Relevant tax or litigation period: 2017–2019 customs benchmark-value dispute.
- The recorded procedural path is: Morrison filed a substantive writ in November 2018 and sought interim restraint while the customs-valuation claims remained pending.
Material facts and evidential anchors
- The applicant, a frozen-food importer, alleged that selected traders received preferential benchmark values that distorted competition.
- GRA said benchmark values were a risk-management tool and that graduated valuation had been discontinued on 17 October 2018 with implementation of Cargo Tracking Notes.
Questions the court had to answer
- Whether the evidence showed irreparable injury requiring interim protection.
- Whether the Court should restrain a practice no longer in operation.
Holding, ratio and scope
- No reliable evidence connected the alleged policy to irreparable injury to the applicant's business.
- A court does not issue a vain injunction against non-existing conduct; the application was refused.
- Ratio decidendi: Interlocutory relief against a revenue authority requires evidence of serious, inadequately compensable harm and an enforceable status quo. Allegation alone is insufficient, especially when the challenged policy has ceased.
- The holding is bounded by the issues, proved facts, statutory period and court level recorded in this brief. It should not be converted into a broader rule than the court needed to decide the appeal.
Order, remedy and separate reasons
- Formal order: Interlocutory injunction dismissed.
- Separate opinions: Not applicable to this single-judge High Court decision; no separate opinion is recorded in the reviewed copy.
- Obiter: The Court left the substantive discrimination and fairness questions for trial.
Legislative framework
- Legislation applied in the case: Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), sections 10 and 14; C.I. 47, Order 25 rule 1; WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (as discussed by the parties).
- 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
- This is an interlocutory injunction ruling, not a final determination of the customs-valuation claims. No later public merits judgment or appellate decision in the action was located in the searches completed through 19 July 2026. That negative public-record search does not establish that the underlying writ ended or that no unreported proceeding exists.
- Useful for interim-remedy standards in customs-policy litigation. This is an interlocutory ruling, not a merits judgment on benchmark valuation, discrimination or revenue loss.
- Related TaxLawGH research pathways: Customs valuation, Interlocutory injunctions, Benchmark values.
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: High Court (Commercial Division), Accra; This is an interlocutory injunction ruling, not a final determination of the customs-valuation claims. No later public merits judgment or appellate decision in the action was located in the searches completed through 19 July 2026. That negative public-record search does not establish that the underlying writ ended or that no unreported proceeding exists.
- 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 Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), sections 10 and 14 and C.I. 47, Order 25 rule 1.
- 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 Customs valuation, Interlocutory injunctions, Benchmark values.
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.