TaxLawGHby MSL Business School
MSL Business School verified Ghana tax case
Perseus Mining Ghana Limited v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
The Supreme Court dismissed GRA's appeal as a nullity because an administrative-origin appeal required special leave; it did not decide the tax merits.
Published by MSL Business School through TaxLawGH.
Authority in context
Read the decision for the proposition the court actually resolved.
Strong authority on the route to the Supreme Court from administrative-origin tax litigation. It is not authority approving the Court of Appeal's substantive analysis of hedges or royalties.
Parties
- appellant: Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
- respondent: Perseus Mining Ghana Limited
Tax topics
- Tax appeals
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Mining taxation
Material facts
- After Perseus succeeded in the Court of Appeal, the Commissioner-General filed a Supreme Court appeal without first obtaining the special leave required for an appeal originating from an administrative decision.
- Applications surrounding the validity of that appeal were placed before the Supreme Court.
Questions before the court
- Whether an appeal arising from a tax assessment—an administrative-origin matter—could reach the Supreme Court as of right.
What the court held
- Article 131(2) of the Constitution and section 4(2) of the Courts Act required special leave.
- The notice filed without leave was a nullity, so the Court lacked a competent merits appeal to decide.
Ratio decidendi
An appeal whose originating decision is administrative requires the constitutionally prescribed special leave before it can be taken to the Supreme Court; filing a notice without that leave does not create a competent appeal.
Order
The attempted appeal was dismissed in limine; related applications were resolved consequentially.
Separate opinions
No dissent recorded in the disposition reviewed.
Procedural history
Tax assessment and objection; High Court appeal dismissed on 8 February 2022; Court of Appeal allowed taxpayer's appeal on 1 June 2023; Supreme Court procedural dismissal on 11 March 2025.
Later treatment
No later disposition was identified in the sources checked for the legal review completed on 18 July 2026. This is not proof that no later or unpublished order exists.
Current-law relevance
Strong authority on the route to the Supreme Court from administrative-origin tax litigation. It is not authority approving the Court of Appeal's substantive analysis of hedges or royalties.
Legislation considered
- Constitution, 1992, article 131(2)
- Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), section 4(2)
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 Perseus Mining Ghana Limited v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority on 2025-03-11.
- Relevant tax or litigation period: Appeal arising from the 2010–2017 tax audit.
- The recorded procedural path is: Tax assessment and objection; High Court appeal dismissed on 8 February 2022; Court of Appeal allowed taxpayer's appeal on 1 June 2023; Supreme Court procedural dismissal on 11 March 2025.
Material facts and evidential anchors
- After Perseus succeeded in the Court of Appeal, the Commissioner-General filed a Supreme Court appeal without first obtaining the special leave required for an appeal originating from an administrative decision.
- Applications surrounding the validity of that appeal were placed before the Supreme Court.
Questions the court had to answer
- Whether an appeal arising from a tax assessment—an administrative-origin matter—could reach the Supreme Court as of right.
Holding, ratio and scope
- Article 131(2) of the Constitution and section 4(2) of the Courts Act required special leave.
- The notice filed without leave was a nullity, so the Court lacked a competent merits appeal to decide.
- Ratio decidendi: An appeal whose originating decision is administrative requires the constitutionally prescribed special leave before it can be taken to the Supreme Court; filing a notice without that leave does not create a competent appeal.
- 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: The attempted appeal was dismissed in limine; related applications were resolved consequentially.
- Separate opinions: No dissent recorded in the disposition reviewed.
Legislative framework
- Legislation applied in the case: Constitution, 1992, article 131(2); Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), section 4(2).
- 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
- No later disposition was identified in the sources checked for the legal review completed on 18 July 2026. This is not proof that no later or unpublished order exists.
- Strong authority on the route to the Supreme Court from administrative-origin tax litigation. It is not authority approving the Court of Appeal's substantive analysis of hedges or royalties.
- Related TaxLawGH research pathways: Tax appeals, Supreme Court jurisdiction, Mining taxation.
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; No later disposition was identified in the sources checked for the legal review completed on 18 July 2026. This is not proof that no later or unpublished order 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 Constitution, 1992, article 131(2) and Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), section 4(2).
- 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 appeals, Supreme Court jurisdiction, Mining taxation.
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.