IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE SUPREME COURT
ACCRA – A.D. 2026
CORAM: PWAMANG JSC (PRESIDING)
KULENDI JSC
GAEWU JSC
ADJEI- FRIMPONG JSC
MENSAH JSC
BARTELS-KODWO JSC
AMALEBOBA JSC
REVIEW MOTION
NO. J7/06/2026
11TH FERUARY, 2026
ADOLPH TETTEH ADJEI ……….. PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
VRS
1. ANAS AREMEYAW ANAS .……… 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/
APPELLANT /RESPONDENT
2. HOLY QUAYE .………. 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
PWAMANG JSC:
The plaintiff/respondent/respondent/applicant, hereinafter to be referred to as “the applicant”, has applied to the court to review the judgment of the ordinary bench dated 12th November, 2025. We have read closely the processes filed by the applicant as well as by the 1st defendant/appellant/appellant/respondent, hereinafter to be referred to as “the respondent”, and we have listened attentively to the lawyers of the parties argue their respective cases.
The applicant’s Counsel has argued strenuously, that the ordinary bench ought not to have given judgment in favour of the respondent. But, the Counsel for the respondent is right when he said that all the matters raised by Counsel for the applicant are a re-argument of the appeal and do not disclose any exceptional circumstances resulting in miscarriage of justice.
See the case of Michael Odai Lomotey & Anor v Richardson & 3 Ors [2024] 187 Vol. 1 GMJ 1.
However, at paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support of the review application the applicant complains that the ordinary bench in their judgment at page 28 thereof struck down as invalid the whole of the land title certificates issued to both La Hillsview Development Limited and the applicant herein (respondent therein), whereas La Hillsview Development Limited was not a party to the case and not all the land of the applicant was subject matter of this case.
It was not the intention of the ordinary bench that their decision would cover land beyond the 2.0 acres (0.81 hectares) that was in the possession of the respondent and was the land in dispute. The review bench therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, hereby restricts the striking down or cancellation of the title certificates of La Hillsview Development Limited and the applicant herein to only in relation to the 2.0 (0.81 hectares) occupied by the respondent within those certificates.
Furthermore, Counsel for the applicant herein made submissions to the effect that the judgment of the ordinary bench is being used to recover lands of third parties. The court asked for the response of Counsel for the respondent and he virtually confirming same. Therefore, the court deems it necessary to clarify the decision by stating the following;
(a) In the judgment of the ordinary bench, the prayer in the counterclaim of the respondent for an order setting aside the Land Certificate of the East Dadekotopon Development Trust was specifically dismissed. A similar counterclaim by the 2nd defendant had earlier in this case been dismissed and he did not appeal against that dismissal. The ordinary bench took into account the fact that there is a subsisting Consent Judgment entered by the Court of Appeal on 27th April,2015 in Appeal No H1/175/2011 wherein the grantors of the respondent settled their claim to 808.644 acres out of the 2,300 acres of land at Tse Addo. So long as that Consent Judgment subsists, the grantors of the respondent cannot maintain a valid claim for title to land at Tse Addo beyond what was stated for them in the said Consent Judgment of the Court of Appeal.
(b) The ordinary bench noted that it is only if the grantors of the respondent succeed in their suit in the High Court seeking to set aside the Consent Judgment of the Court of Appeal that they may be able to make a claim for land at Tse Addo beyond what is stated for them in the said Consent Judgment. That suit is No. GJ/444/2019 titled;
1. Benjamin Tetteh Quaye
2. Ewormenyo Ofoli Kwashie
Vrs
1. The Ag Chief Registrar of Lands
2. The Trustee-East Dadekotopon Development Trust.
(c) In the circumstances that the judgment of the ordinary bench is being used to interfere with third parties rights and interest in land at Tse Addo, Accra and to ensure peace and the security of interests in land at Tse Addo, Accra without prejudicing the pending case of the respondent’s grantors, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything said in the judgment of the ordinary bench dated 12th November, 2025, any titles, interests and rights of third parties acquired from or deriving from the East Dadekotopon Development Trust in land at Tse Addo, Accra beyond the 2.0 acres (0.81 hectares) occupied by the respondent herein have not been determined by the judgment.
(d) Accordingly, it is ordered that all persons who trace their title to land at Tse Addo, Accra from the East Dadekotopon Development Trust shall not be disturbed in their possession, title or rights over their respective lands covered by their Deeds of Title unless, upon final determination of Suit No. GJ/444/2019 pending in the High Court, Accra, the Consent Judgment of the Court of Appeal is successfully set aside, and thereafter, a court of competent jurisdiction grants a relief that adversely affects the title of the East Dadekotopon Development Trust. See the case of; Boi Stool & 13 Ors Vs Daniel Addoquaye & 2 Ors CAJ4/13/2020 Dated 22nd March, 2023 where this court made a similar order to protect third parties interests in land affected by judgment of the court.
Save for the above clarifications and orders, the application for review fails.
(SGD.) G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
(SGD.) E. YONNY KULENDI
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
(SGD.) E. Y. GAEWU
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
(SGD.) R. ADJEI-FRIMPONG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
(SGD.) P. BRIGHT MENSAH
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
(SGD.) J. BARTELS-KODWO
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
(SGD.) H. AMALEBOBA
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL
EMMANUEL BRIGHT ATOKOH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/APPLICANT WITH HIM FRANCIS GAGRI ESQ. , JUSTICE TSAKPOE ESQ., NOBLET ZOFAYI ESQ. AND RENENNY ASHIBOI ESQ.
DAVID K. AMETEFE ESQ. FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT RESPONDENT.
