TaxLawGHby MSL Business School

MSL Business School verified Ghana tax arbitration

Tullow Ghana Limited v Republic of Ghana

An ICC tribunal rejected Tullow Ghana’s contractual challenge over KNK FPSO insurance proceeds. It held the income-tax assessment did not breach the Petroleum Agreements, the 100% penalty fell outside Article 12, and the 2016–2017 limitation challenge failed.

Governing authority: Read the award for the contractual propositions the tribunal actually resolved.

Arbitral award — not Ghana court precedent

Editorial authority: Michael Siaw Larbi. Legal content last reviewed .

Authority in context

Read the award for the contractual questions the tribunal actually resolved.

This is an international arbitral award, not a Ghanaian court judgment and not a conventional domestic tax appeal. The tribunal considered whether Ghana’s treatment of Tullow breached contractual protections in two Petroleum Agreements. It did not establish a generally binding rule that business-interruption insurance proceeds are always taxable, nor did it independently determine every underlying Ghana tax-law question. Its significance must therefore be read together with the particular Petroleum Agreements, the historical petroleum tax legislation applicable to Tullow and the precise contractual claims submitted to arbitration.

Decision-makerICC arbitral tribunalAwardTax periodTax years 2016–2019; limitation dispute concerning 2016 and 2017Research statusPrimary award reviewedAuthority classificationInternational arbitral award — contractual petroleum-tax disputeCurrent-law statusReviewed

Formal citation: Tullow Ghana Limited v Republic of Ghana, ICC Case No. 27585/AB/CPB, Final Award, 22 September 2026

Parties

  • claimant: Tullow Ghana Limited
  • respondent: Republic of Ghana

Tribunal

  • Professor Dr Albert Jan van den Berg (President)
  • Dr Michael Pryles AO PBM
  • J Christopher Thomas KC

Tax topics

  • Petroleum taxation
  • Corporate income tax
  • Business interruption insurance
  • Insurance proceeds
  • Tax assessments
  • Anti-avoidance
  • Artificial or fictitious transactions
  • Limitation periods
  • Tax penalties
  • Petroleum Agreements
  • Fiscal stability
  • International arbitration
  • Tax enforcement

Material facts

  • The dispute followed the 2016 failure of two turret bearing systems on the Kwame Nkrumah FPSO and business-interruption insurance proceeds of US$561,559,991 received in 2016–2019 within the Tullow group’s insurance arrangements.
  • GRA’s final assessment attributed the insurance proceeds to Tullow Ghana Limited and assessed petroleum income tax of US$196,545,996.85. It imposed a separate 100% penalty of the same amount under section 33 of the Petroleum Income Tax Law, 1987 (PNDCL 188), producing a stated total of US$393,091,993.70.
  • Tullow Ghana commenced this ICC arbitration on 13 February 2023 under the dispute-resolution provisions of the Deepwater Tano and West Cape Three Points Petroleum Agreements and the Contract Acknowledgment.
  • The tribunal sat in an international commercial arbitration seated in London. It was deciding contractual claims against Ghana, not exercising the statutory jurisdiction of GRA or a Ghanaian tax court.

Questions before the tribunal

  • Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over Tullow Ghana’s contractual claims concerning the GRA assessment.
  • Whether GRA’s attribution and assessment of the insurance proceeds breached Article 12 of the Petroleum Agreements.
  • Whether the 100% penalty imposed under section 33 of PNDCL 188 fell within Article 12 and breached the Petroleum Agreements.
  • Whether the assessment for 2016 and 2017 was out of time under section 79 of the Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act 592).
  • Whether the loss-adjuster report constituted new information for section 79(2), and whether gross or wilful neglect had to be decided.
  • Whether Ghana’s tax-enforcement proceedings breached Article 24.10 of the Deepwater Tano Petroleum Agreement.
  • What relief and allocation of legal and arbitration costs should follow.

What the tribunal decided

  • The tribunal had jurisdiction because Tullow Ghana advanced arbitrable contractual claims under the Petroleum Agreements and Contract Acknowledgment, even though resolving them required consideration of Ghana tax legislation.
  • Applying a reasonableness and substantial-deference standard rather than conducting a statutory tax appeal, the tribunal held that the income-tax assessment did not breach Article 12 of the Petroleum Agreements.
  • The 100% penalty was outside the scope of Article 12. The tribunal therefore dismissed the contractual penalty claim without deciding whether the penalty was valid under section 33 of PNDCL 188 as a matter of Ghana tax law.
  • The limitation challenge failed because the loss-adjuster report was new information for section 79(2) of Act 592. The tribunal did not need to decide whether there had been gross or wilful neglect.
  • Article 24.10 was not breached. On the tribunal’s construction, a request for arbitration or sole-expert determination—not the earlier notice of dispute—was the relevant starting point, and the enforcement proceedings instituted on 13 January 2023 had been withdrawn before the 13 February 2023 request for arbitration.

Operative reasoning

The tribunal treated the dispute as a contractual review of Ghana’s compliance with stabilised petroleum-agreement protections, not as a tax appeal. It gave substantial deference to GRA and asked whether the assessment was reasonable on the record. It found the income-tax assessment contractually permissible, treated the statutory penalty as outside Article 12 without deciding its validity under Ghana tax law, accepted the loss-adjuster report as new information reopening the 2016–2017 limitation period, and construed Article 24.10 to attach when a matter was referred to arbitration or a sole expert.

Obiter

  • The tribunal’s discussion of Ghana tax law formed part of its contractual analysis. It is not a decision of a Ghanaian court or statutory tax appellate body and does not bind them as precedent.
  • The award should not be generalised into a proposition that all business-interruption insurance proceeds are taxable in Ghana, or that a 100% penalty was validly imposed under section 33 of PNDCL 188.

Order

The tribunal declared that it had jurisdiction; held that the GRA assessment did not breach Article 12 of the Petroleum Agreements; held that the enforcement proceedings instituted on 13 January 2023 did not breach Article 24.10 of the Deepwater Tano Petroleum Agreement; directed each party to bear its own legal costs; directed each party to bear 50% of the US$1,171,000 arbitration costs, being US$585,500 each; and dismissed all other relief.

Separate opinions

None. The final award is signed by all three arbitrators.

Procedural history

GRA issued the final assessment on 1 December 2022 following its audit of the insurance proceeds. Tullow Ghana commenced ICC Case No. 27585/AB/CPB on 13 February 2023. After written and oral proceedings, the three-member tribunal made its final award on 22 September 2026. The company publicly reported the outcome on 30 September 2026.

Later treatment

No later public judicial, arbitral or enforcement disposition was located in the bounded public-source searches completed through 30 September 2026. Tullow stated on 30 September 2026 that it was considering next steps after further engagement with the Government of Ghana. This time-bounded search does not prove that no confidential, unpublished or subsequently filed proceeding exists.

Current-law relevance

This is a primary-source international arbitral award on contractual protections in historically specific petroleum agreements. It is not a Ghana court precedent, a statutory tax appeal or a general ruling on the taxation of insurance proceeds. Researchers should separate its contractual holdings from unresolved questions of Ghana tax-law validity, check the law applicable to the relevant years, and use the current Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896) only after accounting for the stabilised and historical regime addressed in the award.

Current-law note

Act 592 has been replaced by the Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), and Act 896 now contains the general statutory regime for petroleum operations. The award nevertheless applied the historical and stabilised framework relevant to Tullow’s Petroleum Agreements. Historical provision numbers or limitation rules must not be translated into current law without checking the legislation applicable to the taxpayer and period.

Legislation considered

  • Petroleum Income Tax Law, 1987 (PNDCL 188), including section 33
  • Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act 592), including section 79
  • Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), current-law successor framework
  • Deepwater Tano Petroleum Agreement, including Articles 12 and 24.10
  • West Cape Three Points Petroleum Agreement, including Article 12
  • Contract Acknowledgment, including Article 1.10
  • ICC Rules of Arbitration effective 1 January 2021

Research limits

What the award does not decide

  • The award does not establish that every business-interruption insurance payment is taxable in Ghana.
  • It does not establish that a 100% tax penalty is invariably valid.
  • It does not constitute a binding precedent of the Ghanaian courts.
  • It does not replace the ordinary objection and appeal framework applicable to taxpayers who are not protected by equivalent contractual arbitration provisions.
  • It does not make the historical PITL and Internal Revenue Act rules the current general law.
  • It does not mean that every piece of information discovered after an audit permits an otherwise time-barred assessment.

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.

01

A. Authority level and the question actually decided

  • The tribunal was constituted under the ICC Rules and sat in an arbitration seated in London. Its authority came from the Petroleum Agreements and Contract Acknowledgment, not from Ghana’s statutory objection and appeal machinery.
  • The award therefore resolves Ghana’s contractual exposure. It may be persuasive evidence of how this tribunal understood the historical regime, but it is not binding Ghana court precedent and should not be cited as though it were a tax judgment.
02

B. Income-tax assessment and deferential contractual review

  • The tribunal did not rehear the assessment as a Ghana tax appellate court. It applied a balance-of-probabilities burden within a reasonableness review and gave substantial deference to GRA’s assessment.
  • On that standard and record, the tribunal held that attributing and assessing the US$561,559,991 of insurance proceeds did not breach Article 12. The holding is confined to the contractual challenge and cannot safely be converted into a universal rule for insurance proceeds.
03

C. The 100% penalty was outside Article 12

  • GRA imposed a US$196,545,996.85 penalty, equal to the income-tax assessment, under section 33 of PNDCL 188. The tribunal held that this penalty fell outside Article 12’s contractual protection.
  • Paragraphs 473–474 are the critical limit: the tribunal did not decide the penalty’s validity under section 33 as a matter of Ghana tax law. The correct proposition is that Tullow Ghana’s contractual penalty claim failed, not that the award validated the penalty.
04

D. Limitation, new information and no neglect finding

  • The ordinary four-year periods for 2016 and 2017 would otherwise have expired, but section 79(2) of Act 592 permitted a later assessment where new information was discovered. The tribunal accepted the loss-adjuster report as qualifying new information.
  • That finding disposed of the limitation issue. The tribunal expressly did not need to decide whether Tullow Ghana had been grossly or wilfully neglectful, so no such finding should be attributed to it.
05

E. Enforcement timing, result and responsible use

  • For Article 24.10, the tribunal distinguished the notice-of-dispute stage from the referral of a matter to arbitration or a sole expert. The enforcement proceeding was commenced on 13 January 2023 but withdrawn before the request for arbitration on 13 February 2023, so the contractual non-enforcement obligation was not breached.
  • The award left each party to bear its own legal costs and half the US$1,171,000 arbitration costs. For present research, attribute each proposition to the tribunal, identify the historical and stabilised contractual setting, and check any later judicial or arbitral development.
06

F. Jurisdiction and the contractual route

  • Ghana’s objections did not prevent the tribunal from deciding the claims submitted under the Petroleum Agreements and Contract Acknowledgment. The tribunal characterised those claims as arbitrable contractual disputes even though their resolution required it to consider Ghana tax legislation.
  • That distinction is important. The jurisdictional ruling did not convert the arbitration into a general appellate route from GRA assessments, and it does not replace the statutory objection and appeal process for taxpayers without equivalent contractual protections.
07

G. Primary-source map and attribution

  • The full 154-page signed final award is the controlling source for this brief. The jurisdiction analysis appears at paragraphs 285–374, the standard of review at 398–405, the income-tax assessment at 417–448, the penalty at 449–475, limitation at 483–517, enforcement at 518–530, costs at 541–551 and the dispositive order at paragraph 552.
  • The award’s propositions are attributed to the tribunal. Tullow’s public update is used only for the bounded post-award status and is not allowed to enlarge, narrow or restate the tribunal’s holdings.
08

H. Later treatment and current-law use

  • No later public judicial, arbitral or enforcement disposition was located in the searches completed through 30 September 2026. Tullow stated that it was considering next steps after further engagement with the Government of Ghana; that statement does not establish that any further proceeding has begun.
  • Act 592 has been replaced by Act 896, but the award dealt with historical legislation and stabilised contractual terms. Any present-day reliance must identify the relevant tax year and agreement, verify the currently applicable legislation and recheck later treatment.

Practical research points

  • Describe the decision as an ICC final award in a contractual petroleum-tax dispute, not as a Ghana tax judgment.
  • Separate the US$196,545,996.85 income-tax assessment from the distinct 100% penalty of the same amount and the combined US$393,091,993.70 figure.
  • When citing the penalty outcome, state both that it fell outside Article 12 and that the tribunal did not decide its validity under section 33 of PNDCL 188.
  • For limitation analysis, identify the loss-adjuster report as the new information accepted under section 79(2) and do not imply a finding of gross or wilful neglect.
  • Read the reasonableness and substantial-deference standard before using the assessment holding; the tribunal did not conduct a de novo statutory tax appeal.
  • Check the particular petroleum agreement, stabilisation terms, tax year and applicable enactment before applying the award elsewhere.
  • Verify later treatment before reliance because the public post-award position was still developing on 30 September 2026.

Continue your research

Related TaxLawGH resources

Ghana Tax Case Library Ghana Tax Judicial Authority Ghana tax laws Ghana petroleum taxation Ghana corporate income tax Ghana tax penalties Ghana tax debt recovery and enforcement

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.

Visit MSL Business School

Educational information, not legal advice. Verify the primary award, the legislation for the relevant period and any later treatment before relying on a proposition.
© 2026 MSL Business School.

Browse all Ghana tax cases