The Supreme Court ( SC) has drawn a firm legal line under one of the country’s most protracted and closely watched land disputes, unanimously dismissing a review application filed by businessman, Adolph Tetteh Adjei, against investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas.
In a decisive 7–0 ruling delivered on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, the apex court held that Tetteh Adjei’s application failed to meet the exceptionally high legal threshold required for the court to revisit its own final decisions. The judgment effectively cements an earlier Supreme Court ruling delivered in November 2025, which upheld Anas’ claim to a disputed parcel of prime land in Accra — a case that has traversed nearly every level of Ghana’s judicial system.
A Case That Refused To End
The dispute, has been litigated relentlessly for years, moving from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and eventually to the Supreme Court. Each stage deepened tensions among parties and communities connected to the contested land.
After losing at the Supreme Court in late 2025 before a five-member panel in a unanimous 5–0 decision, Tetteh Adjei returned to the apex court with a last-ditch review application a rare legal remedy that asks the court to reconsider its own final judgment.
Legal observers noted from the outset that review applications face a notoriously steep burden of proof. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly emphasized that such applications are not opportunities to relitigate arguments already decided but must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances.
Inside The Courtroom
The review application was argued on January 27, 2026, before a seven-member panel presided over by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang. The panel included Justices Richard Adjei Frimpong, Hafisatu Amaleboba, Yoni Kulendi, Bright Mensah, Janapare Bartels-Kodwo, and Ernest Gaewu a composition reflecting the gravity of the legal issues and the prolonged nature of the dispute.
Lawyers for Tetteh Adjei Bright Atoko presented six grounds, alleging miscarriage of justice and misapplication of the law. They urged the court to find that the earlier ruling contained errors significant enough to warrant intervention.
But during proceedings, the bench repeatedly pressed counsel on whether the arguments truly revealed a fundamental defect or merely attempted to reopen matters already conclusively settled. Observers noted the justices’ careful questioning around the legal boundaries of review jurisdiction — a signal that the court was keen to preserve the finality of its judgments.
The Court’s Reasoning
Delivering the ruling, the court stated that after examining the motion, affidavits filed in support and opposition, written submissions, and oral arguments, it found no exceptional circumstances to justify reopening the case.
The justices reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited to rare situations — such as a clear and fundamental error apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of compelling new evidence that was genuinely unavailable during earlier proceedings, or violations of natural justice.
According to the court, none of the six grounds advanced by Tetteh Adjei’s legal team satisfied those strict requirements. The unanimous 7–0 decision thus reinforced both the earlier judgment and the broader legal principle that litigation must eventually come to an end.
Costs And Legal Strategy
Following the ruling, counsel for Anas, David Ametefe, requested that the full bench award costs. However, Justice Scott Pwamang declined to impose financial penalties — a notable contrast to an earlier phase of the litigation when costs of GH¢50,000 were awarded against opposing counsel and client in favour of Anas.
Legal analysts interpreted the refusal to award costs as a signal that while the application failed, the court sought to conclude the matter without escalating financial consequences or prolonging hostilities between the parties.
The Human Toll Outside The Courtroom
Beyond the legal arguments, the emotional weight of years of litigation was palpable at the court premises.
Adolph Tetteh Adjei appeared visibly shaken after the ruling was delivered. He spent nearly 45 minutes speaking quietly with lawyers and a handful of journalists before abruptly leaving the court complex with teary eyes without further public comment.
Outside, supporters struggled to process the unanimous outcome. Nii Amartey, a La resident who identified himself as a supporter of Tetteh Adjei, spoke tearfully to the media. He expressed disappointment that hopes for a legal reversal had evaporated. According to him, their camp had anticipated a “dramatic shift” but instead faced a stronger, unanimous rejection. He lamented that the attempt to challenge the earlier 5–0 ruling had culminated in an even more emphatic 7–0 verdict
