EDDT Rejects Claims of Supreme Court Revoking Tse-Addo Land Title: The Full Legal Breakdown

Introduction

The East Dadekotopon Development Trust (EDDT) has issued a forceful rebuttal against circulating reports alleging that the Supreme Court of Ghana has revoked its extensive land title in the Tse-Addo area of Accra. In a recent press conference, Trust officials categorically denied these assertions, labeling them as “false, legally deceptive, and intentionally designed to mislead the public.”

This controversy arises amidst a complex, decades-long land dispute involving the 2,150-acre Tse-Addo land holding. While recent legal proceedings have generated confusion, the EDDT maintains that the core validity of their Land Certificate Number GA 19310 remains unchallenged and fully enforceable. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal nuances, the history of the dispute, and the practical implications for stakeholders in the region.

Key Points

Background

The Tse-Addo land dispute is not a new phenomenon; it is a deep-rooted legal saga that has spanned several decades. At the heart of the conflict is Land Certificate Number GA 19310, issued in October 2003, which covers approximately 2,150 acres of land in the La Dadekotopon area. The East Dadekotopon Development Trust (EDDT) acts as the custodian of this land, managing it for the benefit of the community and its grantees.

Over the years, various families and individuals have challenged the EDDT’s ownership rights. This has resulted in a flurry of litigation, including high-profile cases against the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse Family and the Numo Ofoli Kwashie family. Historically, the Supreme Court has largely sided with the EDDT, affirming the sanctity of consent judgments that established the Trust.

Despite these legal victories, rival claimants have continued to pursue avenues to overturn the Trust’s title. The current tension stems from a misinterpretation of a recent Supreme Court ruling delivered on November 12, 2025. This ruling, cited as Civil Appeal No. J4/08/2025, has been weaponized by “judgment creditors” and land guards to create an atmosphere of fear, suggesting that the EDDT has lost all legal standing to the land.

Analysis

To understand the current impasse, one must dissect the specific findings of the Supreme Court’s November 2025 judgment. It is crucial to distinguish between the broad validity of the EDDT’s title and the specific legality of individual conveyances made by the Trust.

The November 2025 Supreme Court Ruling

The case in question involved a dispute between Mr. Adolph Tetteh Adjei (who claimed title through La Hillsview Development Ltd) and investigative journalist Mr. Anas Aremeyaw Anas (who derived interest from the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse Family). The central legal question was whether the then-chairman of the EDDT had the legal authority to execute a lease to La Hillsview Development Ltd without the concurrence of other trustees.

The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence of such concurrence. Consequently, the court held that this specific conveyance was irregular and vulnerable to being set aside. However, the EDDT emphasizes that this finding is strictly limited to the grant made by Seth M. Odoi to La Hillsview Development Ltd. It does not invalidate the Trust Deed itself or the authority of other validly registered trustees to make grants.

What the Court Refused to Grant

Crucially, the plaintiffs in the case sought broader reliefs that would have effectively nullified the entire EDDT structure. They asked the court to declare the Trust Deed and related consent judgments void for fraud. The Supreme Court explicitly declined to grant these reliefs.

The Court stated: “However, we cannot grant the reliefs the Appellant seeks per his counterclaim because those are live issues in Suit No. GJ 444/2029 pending before a court of competent jurisdiction for hearing and determination.”

This statement is legally significant. It indicates that the apex court recognized that the fundamental validity of the EDDT is still being litigated in the High Court. By declining to pronounce on the validity of the 2001 High Court consent judgment or the 2015 Court of Appeal consent judgment, the Supreme Court preserved the status quo. Therefore, claims that the Trust has been “revoked” are factually incorrect.

Historical Affirmations

The EDDT’s confidence stems from a history of judicial support. On November 19, 2019, and July 22, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered rulings that quashed previous High Court attempts to cancel the Trust’s land certificates. These rulings established that consent judgments—contracts between parties that are ratified by the court—are binding and can only be set aside through a rigorous legal process proving fraud or collusion. To date, no court has successfully cancelled Land Certificate GA 19310.

Practical Advice

The current legal standoff has created a volatile environment for residents, businesses, and investors in Tse-Addo. Here is practical guidance for stakeholders navigating this situation.

For Land Grantees and Lessees

If you hold a lease or have purchased land from the EDDT, you may be feeling vulnerable due to the aggressive tactics of rival claimants. It is vital to:

• Verify Documentation: Ensure your lease or grant document is properly executed and stamped. If your grant was made with the concurrence of all registered trustees, it is likely valid regardless of the specific ruling regarding La Hillsview.
• Document Harassment: Keep a detailed record of any intimidation, illegal access, or demands for money by land guards or judgment creditors. Photographs, videos, and written logs are essential evidence.
• Remain Calm but Vigilant: The EDDT has advised against engaging in physical altercations. Instead, rely on legal channels and state security.

For Business Owners and Residents

The intimidation tactics described—specifically the use of land guards to harass occupants—are illegal. Ghanaian law dictates that possession can only be changed through lawful judicial processes.

• Report to Authorities: Any threat to life or property should be reported immediately to the Ghana Police Service and the National Security Ministry. The EDDT has publicly appealed for government intervention.
• Seek Legal Counsel: If you are approached by individuals claiming to be judgment creditors demanding payment or vacating premises, do not engage without legal representation. Verify their claims through the courts.

FAQ

Conclusion

The narrative that the East Dadekotopon Development Trust has lost its land title is a misinterpretation of recent judicial proceedings. While the Supreme Court identified procedural irregularities in a specific lease agreement, it stopped short of dismantling the Trust’s legal foundation. The core validity of the EDDT’s title to the 2,150 acres at Tse-Addo remains intact, supported by binding precedents and pending further determination by the High Court.

However, the legal clarity has not translated into immediate peace on the ground. The weaponization of legal jargon to incite violence and harassment is a serious concern. As the dispute continues, the rule of law must prevail, ensuring that possession and ownership are determined by courts, not by vigilantes. Stakeholders are advised to look beyond the sensational headlines and understand the narrow scope of the recent ruling.