ADOLPH TETTEH ADJEI v. ANAS AREMEYAW ANAS & ANOR

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 d