Supreme Court Rejects Review Bid in Anas Land Dispute
Seven-member Supreme Court bench unanimously dismisses Adolph Tetteh Adjei’s review application, reaffirming investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ ownership of disputed Accra land.
- Businessman Adolph Tetteh Adjei fails to overturn November 2025 ruling in favour of Anas Aremeyaw Anas
- Title to the disputed Accra property remains with the investigative journalist
- Decision does not affect other parties’ valid grants on the two-acre parcel.
The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a review application filed by businessman Adolph Tetteh Adjei, who sought to overturn a previous ruling in favour of investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas in a high-profile land dispute.
In a 7-0 decision delivered on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, the seven-member panel concluded that the application did not meet the minimum threshold required for the Supreme Court to review the November 2025 judgment of a five-justice bench.
The justices examined the motion, supporting and opposing affidavits, legal submissions, and statements of counsel before reaching their decision.
The dispute, involving a prime parcel of land in Accra, also features a third party, Holly Quaye. The case has traversed the Ghanaian judicial system, moving from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, and finally to the Supreme Court, which delivered the original judgment in favour of Anas.
Mr. Tetteh had argued six grounds for review, alleging misapplication of the law and miscarriage of justice, among other claims. However, the Supreme Court ruled that none of these grounds met the exceptional circumstances required for review, such as an apparent error of law, discovery of new evidence, or a breach of natural justice.
The decision effectively concludes the protracted legal battle, affirming Anas’ ownership of the land, which he acquired from the Ataa Tawiah Tsiniatse and Numo Ofoli Kwashie family.
The full bench also reaffirmed parts of the November ruling, emphasizing that the 2015 consent judgment of the Court of Appeal—intended to compromise an earlier High Court judgment by Justice Ofori-Atta—remains valid unless overturned. The court noted that a separate High Court case challenging the consent judgment is still pending.
Regarding third-party rights, the Supreme Court clarified that its decision does not affect the property rights of other parties connected to the two-acre land, whose grants remain valid until determined otherwise by a competent court.
Justices on the review panel included Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, Justice Richard Adjei Frimpong, Justice Hafisatu Amaleboba, Justice Yoni Kulendi, Justice Bright Mensah, Justice Janapare Bartes-Kodwo, and Justice Ernest Gaewu.
