Abstract:

Ghana’s stamp duty regime, anchored in the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689) and the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), has long been marked by statutory ambiguity and administrative opacity. For decades, courts oscillated between excluding unstamped documents and permitting curative stamping, creating uncertainty for litigants and practitioners. This doctrinal inconsistency was resolved by the Supreme Court in Nii Aflah v. Boateng [2023], which affirmed stamping as a statutory precondition for admissibility and declared earlier precedents permitting post execution regularization per incuriam. While this ruling provides doctrinal clarity, deeper institutional challenges persist. The Stamp Duty (Amendment) Act, 2023 codifies instruments requiring stamping and outlines exemptions, yet Lands Commission practices remain opaque. Officers continue to stamp all documents indiscriminately, impose per page rather than per instrument charges, and conceal revenue splits, inflating costs and eroding trust. This study employs a mixed methodology, combining doctrinal analysis, qualitative interviews, and comparative perspectives from jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, India, Kenya, South Africa, and Nigeria, to demonstrate that ambiguity and discretion are not inevitable features of stamp duty systems. Codified schedules, transparent fee structures, and technological innovations such as e stamping and blockchain verification have proven effective elsewhere in embedding predictability and fairness. The study advances an integrated reform agenda encompassing statutory enforcement, institutional accountability, technological modernization, and equity-oriented policy interventions. It concludes that Ghana must transform stamp duty from a barrier to justice into a transparent, predictable, and accountable instrument of fiscal policy and legal procedure. Future research should quantify litigant burdens, assess e stamping feasibility, and interrogate Lands Commission practices to guide reform.