Lawyers for Terraform Development Ltd and Kwame Edenkema Blay have dismissed claims by Sino Africa Development Co. Ltd that the Supreme Court awarded it land belonging to their clients at Borteyman.
In a statement issued by their solicitors, Asiedu & Yorke PRUC, the lawyers said comments made by Dr. Forceby, who was introduced as Director of Operations of Sino Africa Development Co. Ltd, a subsidiary of the Jospong Group of Companies, during an interview on JoyNews’ The Pulse on 8th October 2026, were inaccurate and misleading.
According to the statement, Dr. Forceby claimed that “At the Supreme Court… we won that matter” and that the judgment is “dominant” and “predominant” over the land in question, that Sino Africa will “take possession of land that we rightfully acquired” once a pending review application is determined, that “Sino Africa has never demolished any properties” and Terraform’s structures are “still there,” and described their clients’ complaints as “wild,” “wicked” and “absurd.”
The solicitors said the statements are in material respects inaccurate and misleading, and sought to set the record straight without commenting on the merits of any matter currently pending before the courts.
What the Supreme Court actually decided
The lawyers explained that the judgment referred to is Sino Africa Development Co. Ltd v Royal Bell Investments Ltd & 6 Ors, Civil Appeal No. J4/44/2025, delivered by the Supreme Court on 3 June 2026, in which Royal Bell Investments Ltd was the 1st Defendant and Terraform was the 2nd Defendant.
They said Sino Africa’s appeal succeeded only in part, by a 3-2 majority, and succeeded against the 3rd to 7th Defendants, the families whose grants from the Nungua Stool made in 2000 were held invalid.
“It must be stated categorically that, it did not succeed against Royal Bell or Terraform. Even the two dissenting Justices would have dismissed Sino Africa’s appeal in its entirety,” the statement said.
Citing the Court’s orders, the lawyers noted that Order (iii) declares title in the land claimed by Sino Africa in its favour “subject and except the parcel claimed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants,” that is, Royal Bell and Terraform.
Order (iv) states that Sino Africa may recover possession of the land it claimed only “subject to the possessory right of the 1st and 2nd Defendants.”
Order (vi) states: “For the avoidance of doubt this court grants a possessory right to the 1st and 2nd Defendants in respect of the parcel acquired by the 1st Defendant from the Nii Abotsi Borlabi family covered by Land Title Certificate No. TD 0558, Volume 019, Folio 58 dated the 10th day of June 2016, measuring 29.791 acres and duly assigned to the 2nd Defendant.”
Order (v) notes that the perpetual injunction runs against the 3rd to 7th Defendants and persons claiming through them, and is not made against Royal Bell or Terraform.
The statement said the Majority Opinion at paragraph 75 noted evidence that Royal Bell and Terraform inspected the land before acquiring it and found no encumbrance, and that “the parcel claimed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents does not form part of the parcel claimed by the Appellant.”
The Court, the lawyers added, held that Sino Africa’s interest had not been formally registered, so their clients could have had no notice of it. Since Terraform “has developed the parcel,” the Court held that “it would be inequitable to deny” their clients “their possessory right over this distinct parcel.”
In his Concurring Opinion, Tanko Amadu JSC described the clients’ parcel as resting “upon a Registered Title Land Certificate… acquired by assignment, perfected by registration, confirmed by a search, and vindicated in possession through process of the court,” describing them as bona fide purchasers for value without notice, “whom equity does protect.”
“Put simply, the Supreme Court did not award Terraform’s 29.791-acre parcel to Sino Africa. It carved that parcel out of Sino Africa’s judgment, by name and by Land Title Certificate number, and expressly protected our Clients’ right to it. Any statement that Sino Africa ‘won’ our Clients’ land, or may ‘take possession’ of it, misrepresents the judgment of the highest court in the land,” the statement said.
Find below the full statement:
