Anas Aremeyaw Anas
The Supreme Court (SC), in a unanimous 7-0 decision, dismissed an application brought by a businessman, Adolph Tetteh Adjei, seeking to overturn a judgment of the court entered in favour of investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, over a protracted land dispute.
The court, in its decision, held that having considered the motion, affidavits both in support and opposition, statements of case of counsel for both sides and heard oral submissions of lawyers of the parties, it found that the application did not meet the minimum threshold for a review of the decision of the ordinary Bench of five justices, delivered in November last year.
The review was challenging the decision of the ordinary Bench on an earlier matter between Adjei, Anas and Holy Quaye, who have been locked in an intense legal battle over a parcel of prime land in Accra.
The case that began at the High Court went all the way to the Court of Appeal through to the Supreme Court, the last and final arbiter of disputes in Ghana, culminating in a judgment in November 2025 entered in favour of the journalist.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the five-member panel, Mr. Adjei filed an application for review which was heard on January 27, 2026, by an enhanced seven-member panel presided over by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang.
Other members of the panel were Justices Richard Adjei Frimpong, Hafisata Amaleboba, Yonny Kulendi, Bright Mensah, Janapare Bartes-Kodwo, and Ernest Gaewu.
The review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court presents a narrow opportunity for litigants to challenge the decision of the apex court. One is required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances such as a fundamental error of law or fact apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of new and compelling evidence previously unavailable, or the breach of the rules of natural justice.
Lawyers for Mr. Adjei laid down six grounds they argued constituted a miscarriage of justice, misapplication of the law, among others, and therefore form the basis for a review of the earlier decision of the court.
The court, however, unanimously held in its decision delivered on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, that the applicant had failed to meet the minimum threshold required to invoke the apex court’s review jurisdiction.
This decision brings a significant finality to the protracted dispute and vests title to the said land firmly in Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who acquired same from the Ataa Tawiah Tsiniatse and Numo Ofoli Kwashie Family.
The full Bench reaffirmed certain aspects of the November decision of the ordinary Bench.
It pointed out that the 2015 consent judgment of the Court of Appeal, which purported to compromise an earlier judgment of Justice Ofori-Atta at the High Court, remained valid unless and until set aside.
This is in recognition of the pending High Court case challenging the validity of that consent judgment.
But the Supreme Court, in its decision, held that until the High Court determines otherwise, the consent judgment remains valid.
On the scope of the judgment, the court reaffirmed that beyond Mr. Tetteh and in relation to the two acres – the subject of the dispute – it did not affect the rights of other third parties whose grants remained valid until otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
A Daily Guide Report