The Court of Appeal has affirmed the High Court’s decision that Adolph Tetteh Adjei rightfully owns a two-acre plot in the sought-after Tse Addo area.
Delivered on July 4, 2024, by Justices Gifty Adjei Addo, Senyo Dzamefe, and Christopher Archer, the verdict was reached with a 2:1 majority, with Justice Dzamefe dissenting after multiple adjournments.
This marks the second setback for investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas in contesting Adjei’s ownership claim in the case titled Adolph Tetteh Adjei v Anas Aremeyaw Anas & Holy Quaye, Suit No. LD/0256/2017.
Adjei originally filed the land dispute against Anas in 2017, asserting lawful acquisition from grantors associated with the East Dadekotopon Development Trust (EDDT).
Anas, defending himself, claimed his grantors were from the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse family.
Initially dismissed by Justice Anokye Gyimah on estoppel grounds during the High Court proceedings, the decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Anas’s attempts to challenge this reversal in the Supreme Court were unsuccessful, with both his certiorari application and subsequent review dismissed.
Initially denied by Justice Amo Yartey, Adjei’s injunction against Anas was later granted by the Court of Appeal, halting further development by Anas on the property.
Following this, Justice Amo Yartey allowed Anas’s application to dismiss the suit on estoppel grounds, a decision overturned by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court directed the case to be heard afresh by a differently constituted High Court.
Resuming at Land Court 10 under Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei, the court ruled on May 4, 2023, in favour of Adjei, declaring Anas as not the rightful owner and a trespasser. Anas was also ordered to pay 60,000 cedis in costs and barred from any further possession or development.
The High Court granted a partial stay of execution for the section of the land with Anas’s building but refused the stay for the rest of the land, pending final determination by the Court of Appeal.
Anas and his legal team, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, filed an appeal, which was subsequently rejected by the Court of Appeal, with costs imposed amounting to GH¢30,000.
