TaxLawGHby MSL Business School
MSL Business School verified Ghana tax case
The Republic v Havilah Oil Ltd, Lilian Acheampong, Nicholas Freduah Kwarteng & Kwame Otchere Darko
In an interlocutory criminal-tax ruling, the High Court rejected the third accused's no-case submission and called for his defence. It found only a prima facie case; it did not convict him or finally determine guilt.
Published by MSL Business School through TaxLawGH.
Authority in context
Read the decision for the proposition the court actually resolved.
Useful for the threshold applied to a no-case submission in a tax prosecution and for the possible evidential role of section 58 manager liability. It is not authority that the third accused was guilty or that every director is automatically criminally liable for an entity's unpaid tax.
Parties
- prosecution: The Republic
- accused: Havilah Oil Ltd,Lilian Acheampong,Nicholas Freduah Kwarteng,Kwame Otchere Darko
Tax topics
- Tax offences
- Failure to pay tax
- Manager liability
- Petroleum products
Material facts
- Havilah Oil Ltd and three individuals were charged with failure to pay tax under section 80 of Act 915. The prosecution alleged unpaid taxes and levies of GH¢9,505,260.63 connected with petroleum products lifted between July 2018 and August 2020.
- At the close of the prosecution case, the third accused, Nicholas Freduah Kwarteng, submitted that there was no case for him to answer.
- The prosecution relied on demand correspondence, testimony from a GRA debt-enforcement officer and a company-registry search said to show that the third accused was a director during the period when the debt accrued.
- The application relied on matters including personal service, time to settle and ongoing settlement discussions. The Court considered those matters outside the established test for a no-case submission.
Questions before the court
- Whether the prosecution had produced evidence on the essential elements sufficient to require the third accused to answer the charge.
- Whether the company-registry evidence and Act 915's manager-liability provision supplied a sufficient evidential link between the alleged company debt and the third accused at the no-case stage.
- Whether service, proposed settlement and requests for additional payment time justified terminating the case before the defence.
What the court held
- The evidence placed the third accused as a director of Havilah Oil during the relevant period and showed an outstanding company tax debt for purposes of the prima facie threshold.
- The points about personal service, settlement discussions and time to pay did not satisfy the legal tests for upholding a no-case submission.
- The application was misconceived and dismissed. A prima facie case had been made against the third accused, who was directed to open his defence.
- The ruling made no finding of guilt and imposed no conviction or sentence.
Ratio decidendi
A no-case submission fails where, taking the prosecution evidence at its highest, there is evidence on which a reasonable tribunal could require an answer. At that preliminary stage, evidence that the accused was a manager during the period of an entity's unpaid tax debt may engage section 58 sufficiently to call for a defence; questions about settlement or additional time to pay do not replace the section 173 no-case test.
Obiter
- The Court's observations that a director has a role in paying company tax debts were made at the prima facie stage and are not a final determination of the scope of criminal responsibility under section 80.
Order
The third accused's submission of no case to answer was dismissed; he was ordered to open his defence; the case was adjourned to 7 April 2025.
Separate opinions
Not applicable; single-judge ruling by Comfort Kwasiwor Tasiame J.
Procedural history
The Republic commenced criminal proceedings against the company and three individuals. After the prosecution closed its case, the third accused made a no-case submission. This ruling disposed only of that application and returned the matter for the defence case.
Later treatment
No later final judgment, conviction, acquittal or appellate ruling under the same suit was identified in the sources reviewed to 20 July 2026. The trial may have continued without a publicly indexed decision.
Current-law relevance
Useful for the threshold applied to a no-case submission in a tax prosecution and for the possible evidential role of section 58 manager liability. It is not authority that the third accused was guilty or that every director is automatically criminally liable for an entity's unpaid tax.
Legislation considered
- Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915), sections 46, 51, 58 and 80
- Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), section 173
Scope and source notes
- This is an interlocutory no-case ruling only. It records no conviction, sentence or final determination of the accused persons' guilt.
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.
What this ruling is—and is not
- The ruling answers a mid-trial procedural question: had the prosecution produced enough evidence to require the third accused to respond? It is not the final judgment in the prosecution.
- A prima facie case is materially different from proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused retained the right to give evidence, call witnesses and challenge the prosecution case.
The charge and alleged debt
- The prosecution alleged that Havilah Oil failed to pay more than GH¢9.5 million in taxes and levies connected with petroleum products lifted over a two-year period.
- The ruling records the asserted debt and demand evidence for the limited no-case analysis; it does not finally quantify an enforceable debt against each accused.
The link to the third accused
- A registry search was tendered to show that Nicholas Freduah Kwarteng was a director while the debt accrued. The prosecution connected that status to section 58's treatment of a manager of a defaulting entity.
- At the preliminary stage, that evidence was enough to require an explanation. Whether the statutory elements and any available qualification or defence were ultimately proved remained open.
Why the no-case arguments failed
- The Court applied the conventional rule that the evidence is tested at its highest for a case requiring an answer. A no-case application is not a vehicle for deciding disputed explanations that properly belong in the defence case.
- Personal-service objections, settlement discussions and requests for time did not show that there was no evidence on an essential element or that the prosecution evidence had been discredited beyond repair.
The precise holding
- The third accused's application was dismissed as misconceived, a prima facie case was found and he was directed to open his defence.
- Nothing in the formal order convicted any accused, imposed a sentence or finally resolved the criminal liability of the company or the other individuals.
Manager liability requires care
- Section 58 addresses a manager's joint and several liability for an entity's unpaid tax, but the relationship between that civil collection rule and the ingredients of the section 80 offence must still be established in the completed criminal case.
- The ruling should therefore not be shortened to ‘directors are guilty when a company owes tax.’ Its narrower point is that the evidence here crossed the threshold for an answer.
Practical significance
- For prosecutors, the case shows the importance of linking the accused to the entity during the precise debt period through reliable corporate and tax records. For the defence, it distinguishes threshold objections from factual or statutory defences that require evidence.
- For researchers, the procedural posture should appear in every citation or summary so the ruling is not mistaken for the ultimate trial outcome.
Limits and later status
- The public judgment search located no final disposition under the same suit by 20 July 2026. Absence from an online repository does not establish that the trial stopped or that no later order exists.
- Until the final record is obtained, this decision should be used only for the no-case threshold and the evidential sufficiency found on 4 March 2025.
Practical research points
- Start with the court level and later treatment: High Court (Criminal Division); No later final judgment, conviction, acquittal or appellate ruling under the same suit was identified in the sources reviewed to 20 July 2026. The trial may have continued without a publicly indexed decision.
- 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), sections 46, 51, 58 and 80 and Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), section 173.
- 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 offences, Manager liability for entity tax, Criminal tax procedure, Submissions of no case.
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.