Anas Aremeyaw Anas Secures Land Dispute Victory as Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Review Application

Introduction

In a landmark ruling that finalizes a protracted legal battle, the Supreme Court of Ghana delivered a decisive 7-0 unanimous judgment on February 11, 2026, rejecting an application seeking to overturn its earlier verdict in favor of the renowned investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas. The case, centered on a valuable parcel of land in Accra, has traversed the hierarchy of Ghana’s judiciary—from the High Court through the Court of Appeal to the apex court—and now stands as a definitive statement on the stringent standards for judicial review and the sanctity of consent judgments in Ghanaian law. This ruling not only solidifies Anas’s title to the disputed two-acre plot but also reinforces critical principles regarding finality in litigation and the threshold for invoking the Supreme Court’s extraordinary review jurisdiction. For observers of Ghana’s legal landscape, property law, and media freedom, this outcome carries significant implications.

Key Points

Background: The Parties and the Legal Journey

The Central Figures and the Disputed Asset

The conflict involved three primary parties: Anas Aremeyaw Anas, the acclaimed journalist known for his undercover investigations; Adolph Tetteh Adjei, a businessman who was the losing party in the original Supreme Court case; and Holy Quaye, another claimant linked to the land. The subject of the dispute was a prime two-acre parcel of land located in Accra, Ghana’s capital. Anas’s claim to the land stemmed from a purchase from the Ataa Tawiah Tsiniatse and Numo Ofoli Kwashie Family, traditional allodial titleholders. The competing claims created a complex web of litigation that spanned years.

Timeline of the Litigation

The case represents a classic example of a property dispute climbing the appellate ladder:

1. High Court Stage: The initial proceedings began at the High Court, where a judgment was delivered. Notably, a consent judgment was recorded in 2015 at the Court of Appeal level, attempting to settle earlier controversies.
2. Court of Appeal: The matter was appealed, culminating in the 2015 consent judgment. However, the validity of this consent judgment was subsequently challenged in a separate, pending action at the High Court.
3. Supreme Court’s November 2025 Judgment: The apex court, sitting as a five-member panel, delivered a final judgment in November 2025 in favor of Anas Aremeyaw Anas. This judgment resolved the core dispute between the parties before the Court regarding the specific two acres.
4. The Review Application: Dissatisfied, Mr. Tetteh Adjei filed an application for review under the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction. This was heard on January 27, 2026, by a seven-member panel.
5. The February 2026 Dismissal: On February 11, 2026, the seven-justice panel delivered its unanimous verdict, dismissing the review application and cementing the November 2025 decision.

Analysis: Legal Principles and the Court’s Reasoning

The Extraordinary Standard for Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court of Ghana, as the final court of appeal, possesses an inherent but extraordinarily limited jurisdiction to review its own final judgments. This power is not an automatic second appeal but is reserved for exceptional circumstances to prevent manifest injustice. The legal threshold is high. As articulated in this and previous judgments, an applicant must typically demonstrate one or more of the following:

• An Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: A grave and obvious mistake of law or fact that is self-evident without extensive re-argument.
• Discovery of New and Compelling Evidence: Evidence of such a crucial nature that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the original hearing and that would likely have changed the outcome.
• A Breach of the Rules of Natural Justice: Such as a failure to hear one party or a reasonable apprehension of bias, which undermined the fairness of the original proceedings.
• Any Other Sufficient Reason: A residual category interpreted very narrowly by the courts.

The rationale for this stringent test is to ensure finality in litigation, a cornerstone of any efficient justice system. Allowing routine re-litigation of settled matters would clog the courts and undermine legal certainty.

Why the Review Application Failed: A Breakdown of the Six Grounds

Mr. Tetteh Adjei’s legal team advanced six grounds alleging a miscarriage of justice and misapplication of the law. The Supreme Court, after meticulous consideration of the motion, supporting and opposing affidavits, written statements of case, and oral submissions, found these grounds unsubstantiated. While the full judgment text provides detailed refutations, the essence of the Court’s reasoning can be summarized:

1. Re-Hashing Old Arguments: The Court found that most of the grounds were merely a re-packaging of arguments already presented, considered, and rejected in the original appeal. A review is not a mechanism to re-argue a case.
2. No Manifest Error: The applicant failed to point to any error that was so clear, obvious, and self-evident on the face of the record that it demanded correction. Differences in interpretation or preference for one legal argument over another do not meet this standard.
3. No New Compelling Evidence: The application did not bring forward any new evidence that was previously unavailable through no fault of the applicant. The evidence cited was either already in the record or could have been obtained earlier with due diligence.
4. Natural Justice Not Breached: There was no credible allegation that the original five-member panel was biased or that any party was denied a fair hearing. The mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not equate to a breach of natural justice.
5. Misapplication of Law Not Established: Allegations of misapplication of law require a clear demonstration that the Court erred in its interpretation or application of legal principles to the facts. The review panel found no such fundamental error in the November 2025 judgment.
6. Threshold Not Met: Cumulatively, the application did not reach the “minimum threshold” required to invoke the Court’s rare review jurisdiction. The unanimous finding underscores the Court’s consensus on this point.

The Status of the 2015 Consent Judgment: A Critical Clarification

A pivotal aspect of the February 2026 judgment was the Court’s reaffirmation of the legal status of the 2015 consent judgment from the Court of Appeal. A consent judgment is a settlement agreement between parties that is recorded as a court order, giving it the force of a judicial decree. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that this consent judgment remains “valid until and until put aside.” This means:

• It is legally binding and operative.
• It can only be overturned through a formal, substantive legal process (such as the pending High Court case challenging its validity) where grounds like fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation are proven.
• Its mere existence in the records does not automatically invalidate subsequent transactions or judgments, but it creates an encumbrance on title that must be addressed in a proper forum.

This clarification is crucial for understanding the chain of title and the rights of parties who may have acquired interests from the family after the consent judgment was entered.

Limiting the Scope: Rights of Third Parties

The Court also provided an important limiting principle. It emphasized that the November 2025 judgment (now affirmed by the rejection of review) was specifically between the parties before the Court—Anas and Mr. Tetteh Adjei—regarding the two-acre parcel. The judgment did not and could not adjudicate the rights of bona fide third parties who may hold separate, valid grants or titles from the same family. The rights of such third parties remain intact “until otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.” This protects innocent purchasers or grantees who were not part of this specific litigation, reinforcing that a judgment *in personam* (against a specific person) does not automatically bind the world (*in rem*).

Practical Advice and Broader Implications

For Landowners and Purchasers in Ghana

This case serves as a stark lesson for anyone dealing with land, especially in urban areas like Accra:

• Due Diligence is Paramount: Before purchasing land, exhaustive checks at the Lands Commission, Land Title Registry, and with the traditional authorities are non-negotiable. Investigate the full history of the title for at least 20-30 years, looking for consent judgments, caveats, and pending litigation.
• Understand the Chain of Title: A consent judgment in a dispute between previous owners creates a cloud on the title. You must ensure such judgments are either valid and unchallenged or have been properly set aside.
• Secure Proper Documentation: Ensure all transfers are properly executed, stamped, and registered. Rely on a qualified property lawyer to conduct the search and prepare documents.
• Act Promptly on Disputes: If a claim to your land emerges, seek legal counsel immediately. Delay can be prejudicial and may allow adverse possessory claims or complicate the litigation.

For Legal Practitioners and Litigants

For lawyers and their clients, this ruling is a masterclass in appellate strategy and the limits of review:

• Review is Not an Appeal: Counsel must advise clients that a review application is an extraordinary remedy, not a second bite at the apple. Arguments must be framed around the narrow grounds of manifest error, new evidence, or natural justice.
• Preserve All Arguments at First Instance: Every viable legal argument must be presented exhaustively during the original appeal. A review application will fail if it introduces arguments that could and should have been raised earlier.
• Document Everything: The basis for claiming “new evidence” must be ironclad, with clear explanations of why it was previously unavailable. Affid