BEATRICE ASOMANI V. DARTEH-ADJEI
HIGH COURT
Family Law–Marriage–Dissolution of Marriage–Petition for Maintenance–Custody of Children–Financial Settlement–Arrears of Maintenance–Denial of Existence of Lawful Marriage–Consent Judgment–Joint Custody–Educational and Medical Expenses–Monthly Maintenance–Financial Compensation–Costs Marriage–Customary Marriage–Proof of Traditional Marriage Ceremony–Validity of Marriage–Prior Statutory Marriage Under Marriage Ordinance–Bigamy–Customary Marriage Void for Subistence of Earlier Ordinance Marriage Children–Status of Children–Rights of Children Born of Void Marriage–Equal Status as if Marriage Had Been Dissolved–Custody and Welfare of Children–Best Interests Principle Judgment–Effect of Consent Judgment–Enforcement of Agreed Terms–Court Entering Judgment in Terms of Consent Agreement.
KOBEAH AND OTHERS V. TEMA OIL REFINERY; BOATENG AND OTHERS V. TEMA OIL REFINERY
TWUM JSC, ATUGUBA JSC
Employment Law — Termination of Employment — Collective Agreement — Whether Reasons are Required for Termination — Contractual Right to Terminate on Notice — Distinction Between Termination and Dismissal In these consolidated appeals, employees of the Tema Oil Refinery challenged the termination of their employment effected under Article 4(vii) of the 1987 Collective Agreement, which permits either employer or employee to terminate the employment contract by giving one month’s notice or paying salary in lieu, without reference to cause. The appellants argued that Article 4(vii) must be read together with Article 21(4)—which lists specific reasons that may justify termination or dismissal—such that the employer must show valid grounds under Article 21(4) before a termination under Article 4(vii) could be lawful. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that Article 4(vii) confers a mutual, no‑fault right of termination and operates independently of Article 21(4). Article 21(4) applies only where the employer seeks to dismiss for cause; it does not restrict the separate contractual right of termination under Article 4(vii). Requiring reasons for termination under Article 4(vii) would defeat its purpose and create an illogical imbalance, as it would imply that employees too must justify their resignation under Article 21(4). The Court reaffirmed that under Ghanaian employment law, an employer is legally entitled to terminate employment for any reason or no reason at all, provided proper notice or payment in lieu is given, and is not obliged to justify or disclose the reason for termination. Held: Appeal dismissed. Terminations under Article 4(vii) were lawful; the employer was not required to provide reasons when exercising a contractual right to terminate upon notice.
FRANK ODURO V GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION GROUP LTD.
BENIN, JSC
Labour Law—Employment—Termination — Wrongful Dismissal — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Disciplinary Procedure — Board’s Power to Act Through Committees — Judicial Review—Administrative Action—Procedural Improprieties—Conflict Between Administrative Rules and Internal Contractual Arrangement— Appeals—Concurrent Findings Pleadings—Functions of Pleadings—Facts to be Pleaded in a Wrongful Termination Action The appellant, a senior executive of the respondent company, was dismissed for negligence and causing financial loss after granting a 10% discount to a third-party advertising agency (Driwald) although the Electoral Commission (EC) had expressly stated it dealt directly with the respondent and had not appointed any agent. The High Court found the appellant negligent and dishonest but set aside the dismissal on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings breached clause 17.5 of the company’s Management Conditions of Service (MCS), which the court interpreted as requiring the Board itself, and not a committee, to conduct proceedings involving an executive manager. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court, holding that the appellant had not pleaded any breach of clause 17.5 and that under section 138(a) of the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179), the Board was empowered to act through committees composed of its members. The Supreme Court dismissed the further appeal, affirming that: Concurrent findings of negligence and dishonesty by the lower courts were supported by the evidence, including letters from the EC confirming that no agent had been appointed and that the appellant personally received payments on behalf of the company. The appellant could not rely on an unpleaded allegation of breach of clause 17.5, and in any event, clause 17.5 must be read together with clause 17(1) and section 138(a) of Act 179, which expressly authorises the Board to exercise its powers through committees. The investigative committee was therefore properly constituted, due process was followed, and the dismissal was lawful. Held: Appeal dismissed; dismissal upheld; no breach of disciplinary procedure occurred and findings of negligence stand.
SCANCOM PLC VRS THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL (GRA)
EMMANUEL ATSU LODOH J.
In early 2020, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) conducted a tax audit into the business of SCANCOM PLC, a company operating through the brand name MTN, engaged in telecommunication and mobile money, for the period January 2014 to December 2018. The company maintained consolidated books and proper financial statements for both sources of revenue until a new separate legal entity known as Mobile Money Ltd took over the mobile money business, leaving MTN Ghana to focus solely on the telecommunication business. At the end of the tax audit dated 4th May 2021, Ghana Revenue Authority assessed tax liability against MTN in the sum of GHS 617,072,509 comprising GHS 410,862,961.57 direct taxes and GHS 18,650,860.00 indirect taxes as well as interests. Out of the assessed tax liability totaling GHS 617,072,509, MTN Ghana promptly accepted and settled GHS 18,650,860.00. Additionally, MTN applied for a waiver on an amount of GHS 26,955,473.00 being interest and penalty which was granted by GRA. MTN subsequently filed a tax objection to the balance of the tax liability which was rejected in a tax objection decision of the Ghana Revenue Authority dated 9th September 2021. MTN, being dissatisfied with the Tax Objection decision, appealed against the said decision at the High Court.
RICHARD AMO-HENE VRS GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, JUDICIAL SERVICE
DOTSE JSC
Section 42(5)(b) of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) sets out the procedures for objecting to a decision of the Commissioner-General. An objection against a tax decision shall not be entertained by the Commissioner-General unless the person has: a. In the case of import duties and taxes, paid all outstanding taxes including the full amount of the tax in dispute; and b. In the case of other taxes, paid outstanding taxes including 30% of the tax in dispute Similarly, Order 54 rule 4(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I 47) also provides that the High Court will not entertain an appeal against a tax assessment unless the aggrieved person has paid 25% of the disputed tax in the first quarter of that year of assessment as contained in the notice of assessment. Richard Amo-Hene sought a declaration by the Supreme Court to the effect that section 42(5)(b) of Act 915 and Order 54 rule 4(1) of C.I 47 were unconstitutional as the rule of “Pay Now and Argue Later” imposed by said provisions is inconsistent with articles 2(1), 17(1), 19(2)(c), 33(1) & (5), 125(2), 130(1), 132, 133(1) and 140 of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992 (the 1992 Constitution) which guarantee the presumption of innocence and a person’s right of access to the court.
GHANA- BELGIUM DOUBLE TAX AGREEMENT
KINGDOM OF BELGIUM, REPUBLIC OF GHANA
CONVENTION BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM AND THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME AND ON CAPITAL GAINS
BLUE SKY PRODUCTS (GHANA) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF GRA (DOMESTIC TAX)
JUSTICE ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR
On 23rd November 2021. The High Court dismissed the appeal brought by Blue Sky Products Ltd against the final decision of the Commissioner General of the Ghana Revenue Authority. The objection was in respect of the interpretation of Section 28(2) of the Free Zone Act 1995, Act 504, and paragraphs 3(3) and 4 of the first schedule of the Income Tax Act,2015 (Act 896). Section 28(1) of the Free Zone Act 1995, Act 504 exempts free zone enterprises from the payment of income tax on profits for the first ten years from the commencement of operation of business. Blue Sky Products (Ghana) engaged in the export of non-traditional products and self-assessed its tax liability for the half yearly period ending 30th June 2020 at €88,549.27. However, applying the higher rate of 15% under paragraph 4 of the first schedule of the Income Tax Act,2015 (Act 896). The Ghana Revenue Authority assessed tax liability for the same period for Blue Sky Products as ₤166,029.88. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Ghana Revenue Authority, Blue Sky Products filed an appeal at the Commercial Division of the High Court on 7th October,2020 challenging the findings of the Ghana Revenue Authority. Following the judgment delivered by the High Court on 23rd November 2021, the appeal was dismissed, and the tax decision of the Ghana Revenue Authority was affirmed by reason that Blue Sky Products falls within two tax regimes. The High Court ruled that free zones companies and exporters of non-traditional goods have two distinct tax regimes with their distinct tax incentives and that even though Blue-Sky Products is a free zone company which produces and exports nontraditional products, the applicable law was paragraph 4 of the Income Tax Act 2015, (Act 896). Aggrieved with the decision of the High Court, Blue Sky Products was before the Court of Appeal praying for a reversal of the tax decision.
GHANA-GERMANY DOUBLE TAX AGREEMENT
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME, ON CAPITAL AND ON CAPITAL GAINS
PATIENCE ARTHUR V. MOSES ARTHUR
DR. DATE-BAH JSC
Family Law–Matrimonial Property–Customary Marriage Converted into Ordinance Marriage–Division of Property upon Dissolution–Whether Proof of Direct Financial Contribution Essential–Domestic Services and Support as Contribution–Property Acquired During Marriage–Presumption of Joint Ownership–Restoration of Trial Court’s Orders. Family Law–Custody and Maintenance–Best Interest of the Child–Award of Custody to Mother–Order for Child Maintenance Against Professional Footballer Husband Statutory Interpretation–Application of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367)–Whether Trial Judge Required to Investigate Standard of Living and Circumstances Before Division of Property–Scope of Judicial Discretion in Settling Property Rights.
PATIENCE ARTHUR V. MOSES ARTHUR
DOTSE JSC
Family Law–Matrimonial Property–Division of Property upon Dissolution of Marriage–Appeal and Restoration of High Court’s Distribution–Dissatisfaction with Apportionment–Whether Division Occasioned Miscarriage of Justice Constitutional and Appellate Practice–Review Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Ghana–Nature and Scope of Review under Article 133 of the 1992 Constitution and Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules–Review Not an Appeal–Exceptional Circumstances–Miscarriage of Justice–Re-Argument of Appeal Disguised as Review–Whether Applicant Established Error Apparent on the Face of the Record Civil Procedure–Finality of Supreme Court Decisions–Grounds for Invoking Review Jurisdiction–Restoration of High Court Judgment by Ordinary Bench–Failure to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances–Dismissal of Review Application and Affirmation of Earlier Decision.
EBENEZER ARTHUR V. DIANA ARTHUR
RITA AGYEMAN-BUDU (MRS), J
Family Law–Dissolution of Marriage–Irretrievable Breakdown–Allegations of Misconduct and Extramarital Affairs–Mutual Admission of Breakdown–Grant of Divorce.
SHAFAWU MUSAH V. AVIATION HANDLING SERVICES (GH) LTD.
B. ACKAH-YENSU, JA
The appellant (employee) was accused of extorting money from an Arik Air passenger and breaching airport safety and security procedures. She was queried, charged, and invited to appear before a Disciplinary Committee pursuant to her contract and the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). She insisted on being represented by a lawyer at the disciplinary hearing. However, the CBA explicitly prohibited legal representation, allowing only a Union rep or colleague worker. The hearing was called off twice because she attended with her lawyer. Consequently, her employment was terminated, with one month’s salary in lieu of notice. She instituted an action in the High Court, claiming: 1. unlawful termination, 2. breach of her constitutional right to legal representation (Art. 19(2)(f)), 3. failure to accord her a fair hearing. The High Court dismissed her claims; she appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision. HOLDING OF THE COURT OF APPEAL a. Article 19(2)(f) does not apply to workplace disciplinary hearings. The right to counsel applies only to criminal trials before a court, not internal disciplinary committees. The constitutional provision was clear and unambiguous, so no interpretation was needed; hence no referral to the Supreme Court was required. b. No absolute right to legal representation before administrative/disciplinary bodies c. Natural justice requires opportunity to be heard, not necessarily oral hearing with counsel.
REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST EX PARTE: JOHN BONDZIE SEY, UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION WINNEBA INTERESTED PARTY)
DOTSE, JSC
Labour Law-Employment-Disciplinary Procedure-Invitation by Investigation Committee-Notice of Disciplinary Hearing-Failure to Attend Disciplinary Hearing Judicial Review-Supervisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-Application for Certiorari and Prohibition-Rules of Natural Justice-Error Patent on the Face of the Record At a UEW Governing Council meeting on 22 February 2018, Dr. Samuel Ofori Bekoe allegedly made threatening remarks involving a cutlass. The matter was reported to the police. An Investigation Committee and subsequently a Disciplinary Board were set up. Dr. Bekoe failed to attend multiple invitations to both bodies. The Governing Council dismissed him on 28 March 2018. Dr. Bekoe applied for certiorari and prohibition at the High Court. He alleged 1. Want of jurisdiction 2. Error of law 3. Breach of natural justice 4. Breach of Wednesbury reasonableness The High Court dismissed his application, holding that: a) UEW authorities acted within their legal mandate, b) He waived his right to be heard by refusing to attend proceedings, and c) No jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice occurred. John Bondzie Sey (the applicant) filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking: 1. Certiorari to quash the High Court’s ruling, 2. A declaration that Dr. Bekoe’s dismissal breached natural justice, 3. An order reinstating Dr. Bekoe. The Court observed that the applicant appeared to be acting as a proxy for Dr. Bekoe, raising concerns about abuse of process. HOLDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT 1. The High Court did NOT commit an error of law or exceed its jurisdiction.The Supreme Court held that UEW acted within its statutory mandate under the UEW Act (Act 672) 2. No breach of natural justice occurred. Audi alteram partem A person cannot complain of being unheard when they refuse to attend hearings. Dr. Bekoe ignored three Investigation Committee invitations and failed to attend the Disciplinary Board meeting.Thus, the Court held he waived his right to be heard. Nemo judex in causa sua Allegations that the Vice-Chancellor was "a judge in his own cause" were dismissed. When a statute requires a particular official to perform a role, the rule does not apply.
AMMA OWUSU SARPONG V KOJO OWUSU SARPONG
K.T. ACKAAH-BOAFO, JSC
Family Law–Matrimonial Property–Distribution of Property upon Dissolution of Marriage–Property Acquired Before Marriage but Completed During Marriage–Financial and Supervisory Contributions of Spouse–Spousal Property-Presumption of Joint Acquisition–Rebuttable Presumption–Equitable as Opposed to Equal Distribution–Article 22(3) of the 1992 Constitution–Guidelines for Quantification of Spousal Interests.
THE REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, ACCRA (INDUSTRIAL & LABOUR DIVISION COURT 2) EX PARTE: PETER SANGBER-DERY ADB BANK LTD
BENIN, JSC
Labour-Employment-Redundancy-Termination-Reinstatement-Jurisdiction of the Labour Commission-Jurisdiction of the High Court in Unfair Termination Action- Concurrent Jurisdiction of the High Court and Labour Commission in Granting Reliefs Under Section 63 of Act 651 Judicial Review-Application for Certiorari-Error Apparent on the Face of the Record-Consequence of High Court Declining to Exercise its Jurisdiction
FELIX YAW BANI VRS MAERSK GHANA LIMITED
DR DATE-BAH, JSC
Labour-Employment-Collective Bargaining Agreement-Termination-Notice of Termination-Salary in Lieu of Notice-Unfair Termination-Damages for Wrongful Termination-Reinstatement-Summary Dismissal Administrative Actions-Judicial Oversight Over Administrative Decisions of Private Enterprise-Ultra Vires Doctrine
ALEX ONUMAH COLEMAN ,DAVID KOOMSON VRS NEWMONT GHANA GOLD AND EMMANUEL ATSIAFU,ERNEST KORANG YEBOAH, FRED SARBAH EBENEZER MILLSANDREW HAYFORD VRS NEWMONT GHANA GOLD, AND ISAAC KONGETEY ISAAC BOADU VRS NEWMONT GHANA GOLD
HONYENUGA, JSC
Appeal-Omnibus Ground-Burden of Proof in Appeal Cases-Findings of Lower Courts Labour-Employment-Collective Bargaining Agreement-Disciplinary Action-Disciplinary Committee-Misconduct Need Not Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt-Termination-Summary Dismissal-Damages for Wrongful Dismissal-Proving the Terms of Employment-Doubt of Trustworthiness of Employees-Validity of Summary Dismissal-Private bodies Are Not Subject to The Same Judicial Control Over Administrative Decisions as Public Bodies Evidence-Burden of Proof-Standard of Proof-Evidence on Record Defamation-Libel and Slander-Exact Words of Slander Must be Set Out Verbatim-Claims of Damages for Defamation Must be Indorsed on the Writ-Particulars of Defamation Must be Specifically Pleaded
GEORGE AKPASS VRS GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD
YEBOAH, CJ (PRESIDING) PWAMANG, JSC AMEGATCHER, JSC OWUSU (MS.), JSC HONYENUGA, JSC
Labour-Employment-Termination of Employment-Difference Between Termination and Dismissal-Letter of Interdiction-Disciplinary Action-Membership of Disciplinary Committee-Summary Dismissal-Unfair Dismissal and Unlawful Termination-Unfair Termination-Natural Justice-Fair Hearing in Administrative Justice Evidence-Burden of Proof-Burden of Producing Evidence-Shifting of Evidential Burden