Supreme Court declares Anas owner of disputed Tse Addo land

Ghana’s Supreme Court has delivered a decisive win to investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, overturning nearly three decades of litigation over a two-acre parcel of land at Tse Addo in Accra.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on 12 November 2025, a five-member bench led by Justice Pwamang JSC reversed the findings of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, holding that Anas had shown “good cause” for the apex court to disturb the factual conclusions reached by the lower courts.

Justices Gaewu, Adjei-Frimpong, Suurbaareh and Mensah all concurred.

The decision sets aside earlier judgments which had recognised the claim of Adolph Tetteh Adjei, the original plaintiff, and dismissed Anas’s counter-claim.
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had relied on conveyances and land title certificates issued under a defective trust arrangement—documents that, in the court’s view, should never have formed the basis of ownership.

Justice Mensah JSC, who authored the lead opinion, stated that the trustee who purported to issue the grant on behalf of the East Dadekotopon Development Trust (EDDT) acted without the mandatory concurrence of co-trustees. This, the court said, violated the Trustees (Incorporation) Act, 1962 (Act 106).

The panel declared emphatically:
“One cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. It shall surely fall.”

How the Dispute Began

The battle dates back to a High Court action in which the plaintiff sought:

Declaration of title to the two-acre land

Damages for trespass

Recovery of possession

An injunction against Anas and Holy Quaye

Anas, however, countered that he had legitimately acquired the land in 2005 through a customary grant from the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse and Numo Ofoli Kwashie families of La—whom he described as the true owners of the larger La lands.

The plaintiff traced his title to La Hillsview Development Ltd, which in turn claimed rights through the EDDT.

Supreme Court’s Findings

After reviewing the long history of the dispute—which included caveats, earlier appeals, consent judgments and competing grants dating back to 1997—the Supreme Court held that:

The grants issued through the EDDT were invalid, owing to improper trustee concurrence.

Land title certificates derived from those grants were therefore void.

Anas’s grantors had remained in long-standing physical possession of the land.

Earlier settlements and judicial records had recognised the interest of Anas’s grantor families.

Anas’s 2005 customary grant was valid, properly formalised, and supported by both documentary and oral evidence.

The High Court and Court of Appeal had made perverse findings inconsistent with the record.

The apex court:

Reversed all favourable findings for the plaintiff

Nullified the land title certificates issued to La Hillsview Development Ltd and the plaintiff

Affirmed Anas’s customary grant and subsequent interests

Awarded GH¢20,000 in costs to Anas