The Supreme Court, in its unanimous judgment, has ruled in favour of ace investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas in the 9-year Tseado landmark land case.
The Apex court, in a 5–0 ruling, overturned an Accra High Court and Court of Appeal decision in a landmark land case in favour of Anas.
Anas Aremeyaw Anas had lost the land case twice at the Accra High Court and a subsequent appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The ace investigative journalist finally won the case after over nine years of waiting.
The Supreme Court ruling affirms that Anas lawfully acquired his Tseaddo land through a customary grant in 2005.
The land situated at East La Dadekotopon led to one Adolph Tetteh Adjei and Anas Aremeyaw and one Holy Quaye engaged in a legal tussel.
One of the land litigants filed a writ at the Accra High Court and pleaded with the court for a declaration of damages for trespass, recovery of possession, and to injunct and restrain Anas from further trespassing on the land.
Justice Gyimah, presiding over the case at the High Court, threw out Anas’s suit seeking an order of the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was an abuse of process.
According to Joy News, “The Supreme Court, in a decisive decision, ruled that Anas’s 2005 customary land grant is valid and superior; the respondent’s 2015 registered title is void, perverse, and cancelled.
It added that the Hillsview Development’s root of title was illegal as it relied on a single trustee in violation of Act 106.
The Supreme Court justices upheld that Anas’s 2005 customary land grant was valid, lawful, and supported by overwhelming evidence”.
Also, the Law Platform stated, “In application of the Trustees (Incorporation) Act, 1962 [Act 106] and customary grant law, the Supreme Court held that the transer of interest in portions Tse Addo land to the grantors of Adolph Tetteh, Respondent in the matter and also the Respondent himself did not extinguish the interest of the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse and Numo Families and the customary grant made to Anas.
The Court, in admirable clarity and elegance, given the chequered history of the case, reinforced the position of the law that due registration of land is subject to vitiating elements of mistake, fraud and pre-existing interests and rights over land. The Court in this case also reiterated the displeasure of the law in transactions over land during the pendency of litigation”.