In a rare show of honesty and statesmanship, a businessman has rejected a GH¢79.7 million import duty refund awarded to his company because the funds entitled to his company are far less than the generous amount the court awarded.
The Accra High Court (Commercial Division 3) on July 22, 2026, awarded Henry Manly-Spain’s company, Servistar Minwax (WA) Limited, the amount as a refund of overpayment of duties to the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA).
Mr Manly-Spain told Graphic Online’s Nana Konadu Agyeman that the expected amount from the judgment should be in the region of GH¢8.95 million and not the GH¢79.65 million awarded.
He said documents he personally gave to his lawyer showed claims of just over GH¢8.95 million, which, with accumulated interest, was expected to rise only slightly above GH¢10 million.
“My conscience will not allow me to accept and enjoy such an amount that is far beyond the value of my original claim,” he said, describing acceptance of the money as a “betrayal of my conscience, my business and the nation,” Mr Manly-Spain said.
“I cannot fathom seeing myself taking such money when I have actually realised the struggles facing the government in providing the basic needs of Ghanaians,” he said.
The businessman has, therefore, petitioned the Commissioner-General of the GRA to disallow the payment of the money, which he described as “in excess of what I expected”.
“I, Henry Manly-Spain, write officially as Director, Servistar Minwax (WA) Limited, and a shareholder, to reject an amount of GH¢79,651,132 judgment debt payment granted to the company against the GRA,” he wrote in the petition.
Independent investigation
Per the petition, dated August 1, this year, the businessman said although the GRA legitimately owed the company, the company could not benefit from the state in the name of an unjustified debt payment.
He, therefore, called for an independent investigation by the GRA, the Economic and Organised Crime Office and other investigative bodies to ensure that money paid to the company “duly merits the company”.
Mr Manly-Spain said he was initially unaware that his claim had ballooned to more than GH¢79 million since he left the matter largely in the hands of his lawyer after handing over the relevant documents and was usually told that the lawyer was “on it”.
He said he first heard the GH¢79.7 million figure during court proceedings, when he witnessed a disagreement between his lawyer and a Customs officer.
“I was with a good friend of mine who is also a lawyer. He looked at me, I looked at him, and we both repeated the money, and I shook my head,” he said.
He said the original claims comprised more than GH¢7 million relating to containers sold by the GRA and about GH¢940,000 in overpaid duties.
“I was just saying that if there should be anything at all, it should not go beyond GH¢10 million, with all the interest accrued,” he said.
Mr Manly-Spain said he also attempted to raise his concerns before judgment was delivered, telling a Bank of Ghana official involved in the proceedings that he was not expecting GH¢79 million and asking that the discrepancy be brought to the court’s attention.
“I raised my hand up and then just to utter something, but the court said no one is talking here,” he said, after the judge declined to allow him to raise the matter, saying her decision had already been written.
“To take GH¢79 million, knowing the fact that that is not what I am expecting, I feel I am doing a great disservice first to God and secondly to the nation,” he said, citing the government’s difficulty in funding essential healthcare equipment such as dialysis machines and incubators.
Ruling
The ruling by the court, presided over by Doris Awuah Dabanka-Bekoe, arose from garnishee proceedings on July 20, this year, in which the Bank of Ghana, represented by its deputy manager, was asked why funds in the Ghana Revenue Authority’s (GRA) operational and refund accounts should not be attached to satisfy a judgment debt owed to the plaintiff.
The Bank of Ghana argued that the GRA’s operational account could not be attached because an earlier court ruling had classified it as a salary account.
The bank also argued that the refund account was protected because it was specifically designated for taxpayers who had overpaid their taxes and were entitled to refunds.
The ruling said counsel for the judgment debtor, GRA, relied on Section 69(2) of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915), arguing that the refund account was restricted to its statutory purpose and could not be attached.
The plaintiff’s counsel, Maxwell Logan, however, argued that the judgment debt itself arose from an unpaid tax refund and, therefore, fell squarely within the purpose for which the refund account was established.
The court noted that judgment had previously been entered in favour of the plaintiff after the parties reconciled the amount due.
“The amount was certified after the reconciliation which GRA has failed to pay, hence the suit,” the court stated.
The court further noted that the alleged tax overpayment occurred in 2009, while an audit conducted in 2016 confirmed the overpayment.
The plaintiff subsequently applied for a refund but received no payment, leading to the lawsuit.
The court, therefore, held that the plaintiff, like other taxpayers who had made excess payments, was entitled to be paid from the GRA refund account under Section 69(2)(a) of Act 915.
It consequently directed the Bank of Ghana not to release the GH¢527,104,657 held in the GRA refund account, but ordered that GH¢79,651,132 be taken from the account and paid to the plaintiff in satisfaction of the judgment debt.
The court directed that the money be paid into the Logan & Associates client account or transferred directly to the account bearing that name.
The ruling also referred to a Supreme Court decision, The Republic v High Court, Fast Track Division, No. J5/247/2012, in support of the position that funds in the operational account could, in certain circumstances, be attached.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source link
