VINCENT EKOW ASSAFUAH VRS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Supreme Court
The case concerns petitions for the removal of the Chief Justice under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. The Applicant contended that the President violated the Chief Justice’s right to a fair hearing by transmitting the petitions to the Council of State before notifying her and obtaining her responses. The Court found that the Chief Justice was subsequently furnished with the petitions and given an opportunity to respond before the Council of State concluded its deliberations. The Executive’s actions enjoy a presumption of regularity, and injunctive relief should only be granted where a clear constitutional breach would cause irreparable harm. Since no ongoing harm existed and the procedural safeguards were effectively respected, the Court held that the interlocutory injunction could not be granted. The proceedings under Article 146 were therefore allowed to continue.
LT. COL. S. B. ASHUN V ACCRA BREWERY LTD.
Supreme Court
Labour Law — Termination of Employment — Redundancy — Wrongful Termination — Severance Pay — Compromise Agreement — Effect of Accepting Redundancy Package — Construction of NLCD 342 — Damages Facts: The appellant, employed as Chief of Security by Accra Brewery Ltd., was declared redundant on 29 November 1996 as part of a manpower rationalisation exercise. He received: 1. three months’ salary in lieu of notice, 2. salary up to 2 December 1996, 3. payment for accrued leave, and 4. a severance award of 2½ months’ pay per year of service from 1991. He accepted all benefits. He later challenged the redundancy as unlawful and sued for a declaration, damages, additional severance (eight months per year of service), and salary/benefits for the six years remaining until retirement. The High Court ruled in his favour, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision. He appealed to the Supreme Court. Held (Per Date-Bah JSC): 1. Contract of Employment Is Terminable; Not a Promise of Employment Until Retirement A contract of employment, even if indefinite, is not life employment. Wrongful termination does not entitle an employee to salary up to retirement age. 2. Acceptance of Severance Package Constituted a Compromise Agreement By accepting the severance benefits without protest, the appellant entered into a binding compromise, extinguishing his right to challenge the termination. He ought to have accepted the package “without prejudice” if he intended to contest it. 3. NLCD 342 Did Not Apply to Redundancy Situations NLCD 342 applies to cases of organisational closure, amalgamation, or restructuring—not redundancy. It therefore imposed no duty of negotiation on the employer in this case. 4. Termination Became Mutual Upon Acceptance of Package By accepting the redundancy package, the termination became mutual, not unilateral. The appellant thus had no cause of action.
ISAAAC K. KOBI & 24 ORS V. GHANA MANGANESE CO. LTD
Supreme Court
Labour Law — Employment—Employee Dismissal — Collective Agreement — Requirement of Fair Procedure — Burden on Employer — Failure to Prove Misconduct — No Right to Terminate Arbitrarily — Payment of Entitlements Not Sufficient — Appellate Interference with Concurrent Findings The appellants, employees of the respondent mining company, were refused re‑engagement after a demonstration by some workers against the intended removal of a company doctor. Following mediation by the Ministry of Employment, workers were required to sign declarations of confidence in management and re‑apply for their positions. Although the appellants complied, they were rejected on grounds of “loss of confidence.” Several appellants did not participate in the demonstration. The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to comply with the termination and disciplinary procedures in the governing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which required that an employee be found guilty of an offence under the schedule before termination, and that one month’s notice or salary in lieu be given. No evidence was led to prove that the appellants committed any offence, nor were disciplinary procedures invoked. Payment of purported entitlements did not cure the procedural defects. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ factual finding that many appellants did not participate in the strike and noted that the employer failed to challenge their denials in cross‑examination. The respondent’s reliance on an alleged redundancy declaration was rejected as unsupported by the evidence and inconsistent with the legal meaning of redundancy. Reaffirming that termination of employment must be fair and justifiable, particularly under the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), the Court rejected the traditional notion that an employer may terminate at will merely by giving notice. The employer bears the duty to demonstrate a fair reason and fair procedure. Held: The termination was wrongful. Appeal allowed; decisions of the lower courts set aside. Damages awarded to each appellant for wrongful termination. Claim for defamation dismissed.
ISAAC K. KOBI & 24 OTHERS v GHANA MANGANESE COMPANY LTD.
Court of Appeal
Employment Law — Termination of Employment — Strike Action — Collective Agreement — Whether termination was wrongful — Defamation — Burden of Proof Facts: The appellants, employees of the respondent mining company, participated in or were affected by an industrial action on 19 May 1999. Although management subsequently rescinded its initial decision to close the mine and dismiss all workers, it required all employees to execute a “Declaration of Renewal of Confidence and Loyalty” as a condition for re‑entry. Despite complying, 25 employees, including persons who were not present at the strike, were issued rejection letters terminating their employment, stating they were “not re-admitted after closure of the mine in May 1999.” They sued in the High Court claiming wrongful termination and defamation. The High Court dismissed their claims, holding that the strike was illegal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299). Held: Termination not wrongful. Although the Court of Appeal found that the respondent failed to prove participation of some appellants in the strike and provided weak evidence on alleged misconduct, the employer retained contractual power to terminate employment by notice or payment in lieu under the Collective Agreement. The legality of the strike was therefore irrelevant to the validity of the termination. All entitlements were paid, and the employer needed not assign reasons for termination. Therefore, the termination was lawful. Defamation claim failed. The words “not re-admitted after closure of the mine” were held to be factual and not defamatory. Appeal dismissed. Ratio: In contracts of employment governed by a collective agreement permitting termination by notice or payment in lieu, an employer need not justify termination with reasons. Once notice or its monetary equivalent is given, termination is lawful even if the employer’s stated reasons are unsatisfactory. Decision: Appeal dismissed.
CENTRE FOR CITIZENSHIP CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEMS LBG (CenCES) VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, HER LADYSHIP GERTRUDE ARABA ESAABA SACKEY TORKORNOO CJ AND HIS LORDSHIP GABRIEL SCOTT PWAMANG
Supreme Court
The majority held that Article 146 proceedings must remain strictly confidential and struck out affidavit portions disclosing in camera material. It ruled that interlocutory injunctions against constitutional processes require proof of clear and manifest unconstitutionality, which was not established. The Court found that the President acted within his constitutional mandate after a prima facie determination. Allegations of bias and procedural impropriety were not sufficiently demonstrated. It further held that declaratory relief after the fact would be adequate if wrongdoing were proven. Accordingly, the application for injunction was dismissed in its entirety.
HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE GERTRUDE ARABA ESAABA SACKEY TORKORNOO VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, JUSTICE GABRIEL SCOTT PWAMANG, JUSTICE SAMUEL KWAME ADIBU-ASIEDU, DANIEL YAO DOMELOVO, MAJOR FLORA BAZWAANURA DALUGO AND PROFESSOR JAMES SEFAH DZISAH (J8/113/2025)
Supreme Court
The Chief Justice brought an application for an interlocutory injunction to halt ongoing removal proceedings initiated under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. The Court reaffirmed that injunctions restraining constitutional processes are granted only in exceptional circumstances involving a clear and manifest constitutional violation, which the Applicant failed to demonstrate. It held that the mere filing of a suit does not suspend the performance of constitutional duties, especially in public law matters affecting governance. The Court found no sufficient evidence of bias, illegality, or irreparable harm to justify interfering with the committee’s work or the President’s suspension warrant. On the issue of in camera proceedings, the Court held that Article 146(8) expressly mandates confidentiality, and alleged leakages do not justify departing from a constitutional requirement. Consequently, the application was found to lack merit and was dismissed in its entirety.
TONY LITHUR V. NANA OYE LITHUR
SUPREME COURT
The case concerned an appeal arising from interlocutory proceedings in a pending matrimonial cause. The Appellant, in the course of divorce proceedings, applied to the High Court for interim relief pending the determination of the substantive petition. She sought, among other reliefs, an order ejecting the Respondent from the matrimonial home and restraining him from entering or going near the home or her. The High Court granted some of the interim reliefs. The Respondent appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, effectively setting aside the interim orders. The Appellant further appealed, contending that the decision of the Court of Appeal deprived her of her constitutional right to marital property. The Respondent argued that the High Court’s orders were merely declaratory and not executable. A central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal acted properly in entertaining a repeat application for stay of execution and permitting the Respondent to introduce new facts through a supplementary affidavit. The Supreme Court held that: -The Court of Appeal possesses a separate, distinct, and independent jurisdiction when considering repeat applications for stay of execution. -It is not bound by the decision of the trial court in such applications. -The Court of Appeal may consider new matters and fresh evidence not placed before the trial court when determining a repeat application. -The admission of a supplementary affidavit introducing new facts was therefore not improper. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal. However, in light of the evident hostility between the parties and the need to preserve the subject matter of the litigation, the Supreme Court restrained the Respondent from taking steps to alienate the property in dispute pending the final determination of the substantive matrimonial cause. The decision affirmed the autonomous jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in interlocutory and repeat applications, while underscoring the importance of preserving disputed matrimonial property until final resolution.
OPARE YEBOAH & 8 ORS V BARCLAYS BANK GHANA LIMITED
Supreme Court
Employment Law — Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) — Summary dismissal — Interpretation of Articles 15 and 17 — Whether employer must proceed under Article 15 before invoking Article 17 — Labour Act, 2003 — Procedural fairness — Retrospective dismissal. The 1st–8th appellants, employees of Barclays Bank Ghana Ltd and local executives of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU), were served on 26 February 2008 with letters of dismissal issued retrospectively to 11 January 2008. The bank acted pursuant to Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), citing alleged misconduct involving instigating, inciting, leading, or supporting an illegal industrial action on 14 November 2007, said to be in violation of the Labour Act, 2003 and the CBA. The appellants had earlier been served with notices of intention to summarily dismiss them. They denied the allegations and instituted an action challenging the legality of their dismissal. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal upheld the bank’s decision. They appealed further to the Supreme Court. Held, dismissing the appeal: 1. Articles 15 and 17 of the CBA operate independently. Article 17, which governs summary dismissal for serious misconduct, may be invoked without prior recourse to Article 15. The employer is not obliged to exhaust Article 15 before acting under Article 17, and may apply either or both depending on the facts and seriousness of the misconduct. 2. The bank acted within its contractual rights in invoking Article 17. The alleged acts fell squarely within the type of serious misconduct contemplated by Article 17, thereby justifying summary dismissal. 3. Procedural fairness was satisfied. The appellants were given notices of intention to dismiss and an opportunity to contest the allegations before the dismissal letters were issued. This met the requirements of fairness under the CBA. 4. Retrospective dismissal was permissible under the CBA once serious misconduct had been established and notice of intention to summarily dismiss had been duly issued. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal.
GLADYS MENSAH V. STEPHEN MENSAH
SUPREME COURT
The case concerned the division of marital property following divorce. The dissolution of the marriage itself was not contested; the dispute centred on the proper distribution of properties acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. The Court examined the legal and constitutional framework governing marital property distribution, particularly the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) and Articles 22(3) and 33(5) of the 1992 Constitution. The Court observed that societal attitudes toward divorce had evolved and that divorce was no longer to be stigmatized. Consequently, the law must ensure fairness and equality in post-divorce property settlement. In interpreting the governing principles, the Court reaffirmed the “equality is equity” doctrine as articulated in Mensah v. Mensah and Boafo v. Boafo. The Court acknowledged that while equality is the guiding principle, rigid application may not always yield a just and equitable outcome; however, equality remains the constitutional starting point. The judgment advanced the “Jurisprudence of Equality,” advocating for the consistent and equal application of laws affecting women across social, legal, economic, and cultural spheres. It stressed that a petitioner should not be left in a worse economic position due to the conduct of the other spouse. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. The decision reaffirmed the constitutional entrenchment of equality in marital property distribution and strengthened the legal position that spouses are equal partners entitled to equitable, ordinarily equal, shares upon divorce.
ERNESTINA OPOKUAH v ADWOA NYAMEKYE (SUBST. BY EMMANUEL OSEI KISSI) & THE CHIEF REGISTRAR, LAND TITLE REGISTRY
Supreme Court
Appeal against concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal in a land ownership dispute involving competing registered instruments and a Land Title Certificate. Appeal dismissed.
AMA SERWAA V. GARIBA HASHIMU & ISSAKA HASHIMU
SUPREME COURT
The case concerned two Ghanaian migrant workers in Italy. The plaintiff alleged that she was in a romantic relationship with the defendant and that he promised to marry her. Relying on that promise, she claimed she left her job and relocated to Napoli at his urging. She further alleged that upon relocation, she discovered that the defendant intended for her to engage in commercial sex work, and that she subsequently turned over her earnings to him in the belief that they would marry and establish a home in Ghana. The plaintiff contended that her earnings were used to acquire property and repay loans in the defendant’s name. She claimed a beneficial interest in the property and sought reliefs grounded in breach of promise to marry and joint acquisition of property. The defendant denied promising to marry her and disputed her alleged financial contributions. A key procedural issue arose when the Court of Appeal permitted the defendant to raise fresh points of law concerning jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s cause of action without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. The Supreme Court criticized this approach as a breach of the rules of natural justice and the right to be heard. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff had relied on the defendant’s promise and had contributed substantially to the acquisition of the property. It held that a constructive trust had arisen in her favour, giving her a beneficial interest in the property to prevent unjust enrichment of the defendant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the decision of the High Court, except for the award of GH¢5,000 costs to the first defendant.
POKUPHARMA LIMITED VRS GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY, STANBIC BANK GHANA LIMITED
THE HIGH COURT
Pokupharma Limited is a notable pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Ghana. The Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) conducted a post-clearance audit on Pokupharma covering the years 2015 to 2020 on its import transactions. Following the audit, the GRA served a third-party debtor notice on Pokupharma’s bankers, Stanbic Bank Ghana Limited, an action that GRA explained they had the right to do so based on the provisions of the Revenue Administration Act (Act 915). Pokupharma claimed that this action of the GRA caused significant harm and reputational loss. Dissatisfied with the actions of the GRA, Pokupharma filed a writ, amended on 13th November 2023, seeking relief from the actions of the GRA.
Ebusuabatan Mustapha Amoakwa v Boaley @ Yene Wosere Kwa & 20 Others
Court of Appeal
Appeal against dismissal of an action for declaration of title, ejectment, injunction and trespass in respect of land alleged to be family land but found to be a road reservation under municipal planning control. Appeal dismissed.
PETER ADJEI V. MARGARET ADJEI
SUPREME COURT
Family Law–Dissolution of Marriage–Custody of Children–Matrimonial Property–Jointly-Acquired Property–Meaning of Joint Acquisition–Equality is Equity Principle–Non-Financial Contribution–Property Acquired by Gift or Succession–Alimony–Child Maintenance–Appellate Interference–Concurrent Findings of Fact–Primary Findings by Trial Court–Improper Evaluation of Evidence
DELICO PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED VRS THE COMMISSIONER - GENERAL
THE HIGH COURT
Delico Property Developments Limited (“Delico”), a Mauritius-incorporated company until March 2019, held 97.5% shares in Delico Achimota Ghana Limited (Delico Achimota), a company engaged in property management. In March 2019, Delico sold its shares and shareholder loans to a third party, GrowthPoint Investec African Properties Limited, under a Share Purchase Agreement. Delico factored its shareholder loan at an interest of 10% in the sale agreement, resulting in a capital loss from the transaction. In 2022, the Ghana Revenue Authority (“GRA”) audited Delico Achimota’s 2019 financial activities and, in the audit, discovered the Share Purchase Agreement, of which the GRA claimed that the transaction had occasioned Capital Gains Tax. The GRA claimed that the 10% shareholder loan was fictitious and discounted it, assessing a liability of US$4,477,291.25 (inclusive of interest). A Notice of Assessment dated 3 May 2022, was served through Delico’s authorised representative on 8 June 2023. On 7 July 2023, Delico objected to the tax assessment and made a down payment of US$447,729.13, representing 10% of the tax liability, a variation that the GRA allowed, arguing that the shareholder loans were not fictitious and provided the relevant attachments. After the review of Delico’s objection letter, the GRA revised it assessment from the initial US$4,477,291.25 to US$970,385.33, claiming the interest rate applied on the loans is not at arm’s length and as such, should be reduced to 3.25%, which in the view of GRA, is the median rate applied to such transactions in the real estate industry globally. The GRA granted Delico tax credits of US$439,746.13 and US$447,729.13, representing withholding taxes paid on the 10% interest loan and the 10% tax down payment initially for the objection process, bringing the outstanding liability to be paid to US$83,385.55. Delico, dissatisfied with the objection decision of the Commissioner-General, appealed to the High Court.
LYDIA KWAO V. PASCAL MUAKO TCHEMCO
SUPREME COURT
Family Law–Matrimonial Property–Distribution of Marital Property–Joint Acquisition–Contribution to Acquisition of Property–Equality Principle–Subsistence of Marriage–Alleged Sham Marriage–Intention to Create Legal Relations–Weight of Evidence–Concurrent Findings–Appellate Interference–Company Property Distinguished from Personal Property–Transfer of Interest in Land.
MARIAN OBENG MINTAH V. FRANCIS AMPENYIN
SUPREME COURT
Family Law–Breach of Promise to Marry–Damages for Injured Feelings–Concubinage Relationship–Property Rights of Cohabitants–Licence to Occupy–Licensee and Licensor–Recovery of Possession–Contribution to Property–Proof of Financial Contribution–Joint Business Profits–Equitable Principles–Equality in Equity–Applicability to Spousal Relationships–Burden of Proof–Failure to Prove Contribution–Evaluation of Evidence–Counterclaim.
ERNESTINA BOATENG V. PHYLLIS SERWAH & ORS.
SUPREME COURT
Customary Marriage–Capacity to Marry–Subsisting Monogamous Marriage–Void Marriage–Marriage Void Ab Initio–Effect of Void Marriage on Property Rights–Joint Acquisition of Property–Equitable Distribution–Illegality as a Defence–Discretionary Approach to Illegality–Unjust Enrichment–Survival of Cause of Action–Substitution of Parties–Letters of Administration–Admissibility of Evidence–Exclusion of Relevant Evidence–Trespass–Damages
JUSTICE AWUKU-SAO V GHANA SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.
Supreme Court
Labour Law — Employment — Termination — Managing Director — Applicability of Conditions of Service — Special contract — Natural justice — Whether written comments constitute hearing — Summary dismissal — Misconduct — Public officer —Defamation — Qualified privilege in publication. The appellant, Managing Director of the respondent company appointed under a special contract (Exhibit A), was summarily dismissed following a forensic audit conducted during his leave. He contended that the dismissal was wrongful for failure to comply with the Conditions of Service for Senior Staff (Exhibit F), breach of natural justice, and that the publication of the audit report in the media was defamatory. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed his claims. On further appeal to the Supreme Court: Held, dismissing the appeal: 1. Special Contract Overrides General Conditions of Service: The Managing Director’s appointment was governed exclusively by his appointment letter. The disciplinary procedures under the Senior Staff Conditions of Service (Exhibit F), which required the MD to appoint committees of enquiry, were inapplicable to him. Where a special contract exists, its terms prevail over general staff regulations. 2. Audi Alteram Partem Satisfied by Written Opportunity to Respond: Although no oral hearing occurred, the appellant received the draft audit report and submitted written comments which were incorporated into the final report. In the absence of prescribed disciplinary procedures, this constituted a sufficient opportunity to be heard under Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution. Natural justice does not invariably require an oral hearing. 3. Common Law Standard for Summary Dismissal: In ordinary commercial employment, absent contrary contractual provisions, an employer is not obliged to convene a disciplinary tribunal before summarily dismissing an employee. It is enough that facts objectively establish misconduct justifying dismissal. The appellant’s approval of expenditure for renovation of a house already sold to him amounted to gross misconduct. 4. Concurrent Findings Not Disturbed: The concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the appellant abused his office and that the audit evidence justified dismissal disclosed no error or miscarriage of justice warranting interference by the Supreme Court. 5. Qualified Privilege — Matters of Public Interest: The respondent, being a public company, and the appellant, a public officer, rendered the publication of the audit report a matter of legitimate public interest. The dissemination of substantially true information, made without malice, attracted qualified privilege. The claim for defamation therefore failed.
SEADRILL GHANA OPERATIONS LIMITED VRS THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL (GRA)
COURT OF APPEAL
In 2019, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) in exercise of its statutory duty conducted a tax audit of Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited from January 2012 to December 2018. Seadrill was a subcontractor to Tullow Ghana Limited, providing a drilling unit and associated drilling services under the Petroleum Agreement dated 10th March 2006. At the end of the tax audit, Ghana Revenue Authority in a letter dated 8th November 2019 assessed tax liability against Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited in the sum of US$ 305,606,164.19. Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited submitted a formal objection to the decision through a letter dated the 11th of December 2019. As part of the objection process, Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited was required by statute to make a down payment amounting to 30% of the assessed tax to the Ghana Revenue Authority. Ghana Revenue Authority considered the objection and revised the tax liability to US$10,222,849.35. Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited remaining dissatisfied with the decision filed a subsequent objection in a letter dated 28th July 2020. The objection again received a favorable response as Ghana Revenue Authority further reduced the tax liability from US$10,222,849.35 to US$5,448,152.65. Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited again displeased with the decision, objected to same, which was later disallowed by the GRA. Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited proceeded to file both a notice of appeal against the tax assessment at the Commercial Division of the High Court and an application for an interlocutory injunction on 20th November 2021. Upon being served with notice of appeal, Ghana Revenue Authority filed an application for an order to strike out and dismiss Seadrill’s notice of appeal. Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited also filed an affidavit in opposition to Ghana Revenue Authority’s motion on notice. The trial judge following a careful consideration of the processes filed and the arguments of the parties upheld the objection of the Ghana Revenue Authority and struck out the appeal of Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited as incompetent. Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited aggrieved by the ruling of the High Court filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal.