THE REPUBLIC vs HAVILAH OIL LTD & ORS
2025
HIGH COURT
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, COMFORT KWASIWOR TASIAME, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Tax Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2025
HIGH COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court presided over by Her Ladyship Comfort Kwasiwor Tasiame, accused persons were charged for failure to pay tax under Section 80 of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915). The Ghana Revenue Authority served demand notices and granted repayment schedules; all accused agreed to pay except A3, who denied owing and refused to sign. Evidence from GRA’s Debt Management and Enforcement Unit showed A1 admitted liability and owed GH¢9,505,260.63 for unpaid taxes on petroleum products lifted between July 2018 and August 2020. Exhibit A confirmed A3 was a director during the relevant period. Relying on Section 58, the prosecution asserted joint and several liability of managers. Applying Section 173 of Act 30 and leading authorities on submissions of no case, the court held a prima facie case was established, dismissed A3’s motion, directed him to open his defence, and adjourned for trial.
Accused persons have been charged with a count of failure to pay tax contrary to section 80 of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act, 915). Section 80 of Act 915, provides that 'A person who fails to pay tax by the date on which the tax is payable commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction (a) where the failure relates
to an amount exceeding two thousand currency points, to a fine of not less than two hundred penalty units and not more than one thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than three months and not more than one year or to both; and (b) in any other case to a fine of not less than fifty penalty units and not more than two hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than one month and not more than three months or to both.
The brief facts have it that, demand notices were served on the accused persons to notify them of their indebtedness to the Republic of Ghana. The accused persons had also applied for schedules to pay their debts. All accused signed agreement to pay the debts involved except A3. Based on his assertion that he owes not leading to refusal to sign to pay that the prosecution is pursuing the charges against him.
Principally, in every criminal trial, prosecution has the onus to prove the essential elements of the crime against the accused person.
T he elements of the offence per section 80 of Act 915 which provides that 'A person who fails to pay tax by the date on which the tax is payable commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction' are:
1. That there must be a taxpayer .
2. That person must have been liable or assessed to payment of tax.
3. That tax liability must have been due or the tax has become a debt.
At the close of the prosecution's case accused person made submissions of no case through his counsel. Learned counsel for the Accused submitted that prosecution ought to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He supported this principle with the case of FRIMPONG ALIAS IBOMAN V THE REPUBLIC [2012]1 SCGLR 297 Where it was held that ...The burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the case and it is only after a prima facie case has been established that the Appellant therein accused is called upon to give his side of the story.
So, at the close of prosecution's case, the court must find out whether there was a prima facie case against the accused person. A prima facie case is a strong evidence sufficient to link the accused person to