In an unusual display of integrity, businessman Henry Manly-Spain has rejected a GH¢79.7 million judgment debt awarded to his company, Servistar Minwax (WA) Limited, saying the amount far exceeds what he believes the company is legitimately entitled to receive.
The Accra High Court (Commercial Division 3), on July 22, 2026, ordered the payment of GH¢79,651,132 to the company as a refund of overpaid duties to the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA).
However, Mr Manly-Spain told Graphic Online’s Nana Konadu Agyeman that his company’s original claim was only about GH¢8.95 million and that, with accrued interest, the amount should have risen 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.
He described accepting the GH¢79.7 million as a “betrayal of my conscience, my business and the nation”, stressing that he could not justify receiving money he believed was not due to his company.
“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.
Petition to GRA
Mr Manly-Spain has subsequently petitioned the Commissioner-General of the GRA, asking the Authority to stop payment of the judgment amount, which he described as being “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, dated August 1, 2026, he acknowledged that the GRA legitimately owed his company money but argued that Servistar Minwax should not benefit from what he considers an unjustified payment from the state.
He called for an independent investigation by the GRA, the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and other relevant investigative bodies to establish the amount that genuinely merits payment to the company.
‘I thought my lawyer was on it’
Mr Manly-Spain said he was initially unaware that his claim had increased to more than GH¢79 million.
He explained that after handing the relevant documents to his lawyer, he largely left the matter in the lawyer’s hands and was routinely assured that the case was being handled.
He said he first became aware of 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 recalled.
According to Mr Manly-Spain, the original claims comprised more than GH¢7 million relating to containers sold by the GRA and approximately 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.
Raised concerns before judgment
Mr Manly-Spain said he attempted to raise concerns about the amount before the judgment was delivered.
He said he spoke to a Bank of Ghana official involved in the proceedings, indicating that he was not expecting anything close to GH¢79 million and asking that the discrepancy be brought to the court’s attention.
However, he said he was not allowed to address the court when he attempted to raise the issue.
“I raised my hand up and then just to utter something, but the court said no one is talking here,” he said.
According to him, the judge indicated that her decision had already been written.
Mr Manly-Spain said accepting the amount would amount to a disservice to both his conscience and the country, particularly at a time when government faces significant demands for resources.
“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.
He cited the government’s challenges in financing essential healthcare equipment, including dialysis machines and incubators, as part of the reason for his decision to reject the amount.
How the GH¢79.7m judgment arose
The ruling by the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Doris Awuah Dabanka-Bekoe, arose from garnishee proceedings heard on July 20, 2026.
During the proceedings, the Bank of Ghana, represented by its Deputy Manager, was asked to explain why funds held in the GRA’s operational and refund accounts should not be attached to satisfy the judgment debt owed to Servistar Minwax.
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.
It also argued that the refund account was protected because it had been specifically established for taxpayers who had overpaid their taxes and were entitled to refunds.
Counsel for the 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.
Counsel for the plaintiff, 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.
Court upholds payment from refund account
The court noted that judgment had previously been entered in favour of Servistar Minwax 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 legal action.
The court held that the plaintiff, like other taxpayers who had made excess tax 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 Servistar Minwax in satisfaction of the judgment debt.
The court directed that the amount be paid into the Logan & Associates client account or transferred directly to the account bearing that name.
The ruling also cited a Supreme Court decision, The Republic v High Court, Fast Track Division, No. J5/247/2012, in support of the position that funds held in an operational account could, in certain circumstances, be subject to attachment.
