CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL LTD. vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE COMMISSIONER AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE [2010]DLSC2573

CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL LTD. vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE COMMISSIONER AND INTERNAL... [2010]DLSC2573

Date	2010-05-05
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J7/10/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2573

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C.

DATE-BAH (DR) J.S.C.

OWUSU (MS) J.S.C.

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.

PETER KORNOR FOR THE APPLICANT.

JOHN MERCER FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

P. G. NAANA DONTOR CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

[2010]DLSC2573
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL LTD.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE COMMISSIONER AND INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J7/10/2009&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 5TH MAY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>PETER KORNOR FOR THE
APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>JOHN MERCER FOR THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

P.
G. NAANA DONTOR CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ATUGUBA
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C., DATE-BAH (DR) J.S.C., OWUSU (MS) J.S.C.,
BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C., GBADEGBE J.S.C., AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:-<o:p></o:p>This
application for Review raises a short point but involves important questions.<o:p></o:p>The
earlier decision of this court in this case has been reported, see In re Assessment of Income Tax by The Commissioner
of Internal Revenue; Chapel Hill School v Attorney-General &amp; Internal Revenue
Service (2009) SC GLR 432.&nbsp; The facts
of the case are as stated in the headnote thereof as follows: <o:p></o:p>“The appellant in this case, Chapel Hill School,
was originally established as the Takoradi Chapel Hill Preparatory School in
December 1962 by fourteen people who subscribed its Instrument of Establishment
and Governance as founders.&nbsp; The
instrument of incorporation purported to establish it as a corporation
sole.&nbsp; The appellant school was
subsequently incorporated under the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179), as a company
limited by guarantee.&nbsp; However, in 2001,
the appellant was incorporated as a company limited by shares under the said
Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179)<o:p></o:p>The Internal Revenue Service (hereafter the second
respondent), assessed the appellant tax for the years 1994 to 2004 in the sum
of Gh¢39,864.40.&nbsp; Subsequently, the
appellant’s objection to that assessment was turned down by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue.&nbsp; The appellant Chapel
Hill School therefore appealed to the High Court, Sekondi, in July 2005,
seeking a declaration that the appellant was an educational institution of a
public character and thus its income was exempt from tax.&nbsp; It also sought an order for the annulment of
the tax assessments for the years 1994 to 2004.&nbsp;
Even though the High Court found that the appellant school was an
educational institution serving the people of Takoradi and its environs; and
that the school was for the use and benefit of the public, the court held that,
that finding alone, did not make the appellant a school “of a public
character”&nbsp; The High Court therefore
dismissed the appeal.&nbsp; Upon a further
appeal to the Court of Appeal, that court also dismissed the appeal.&nbsp; Being aggrieved by the dismissal of its
appeal by the two lower courts, the appellant brought the instant appeal before
the Supreme Court.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
these facts this court held (1) that the respondent was until it converted into
a company limited by shares, an educational institution of a public character
and (2) that therefore its income is exempted from tax.&nbsp; In this review application the applicant
contests the second limb of this court’s decision.<o:p></o:p>Principles for entertaining
Review applications:<o:p></o:p>The
Review jurisdiction of this court is laid down in article 133 of the
Constitution as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “133.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Power of the Supreme Court to review its decisions<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by Rules of Court.<o:p></o:p>(2)