Just In : Court Rules Against Anas In New Land " Fraud Case"

Anas Aremeyaw Anas was fined Gh100,000 by a high court in Accra for unlawful trespassing and the use of police and land guardians to intimidate the legitimate land owner, Adolf Tetteh Adjei, whose ownership Anas disputed as "fraudulent."


In a case brought before the high Court presided over by Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei regarding a 2 acre disputed land at Tse-Ado taken over by Anas Aremeyaw Anas in 2017, Anas was found liable for trespassing and illegally building on someone else's land "using police and land guards day and night to brazenly deny Plaintiff from using his land."

In his defense, Anas asserted that Adolf Tetteh's claim to land proprietorship was "tainted by fraud."

After examining all of the evidence, the court concluded, "The law does not permit anyone to allege fraud without proving it beyond a reasonable doubt." Also, one would not be permitted to win the court's favor by accusing his opponent of deception without providing proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

The landowner, identified as Adolf Tetteh, stated that the disputed parcel of land is covered by Land Title Certificate No. GA. 464555 and dated February 26, 2015, and provided the court with a copy of the Title Certificate and the deed covering the land.

Adolf Tetteh informed the court that his Sub-lessor has always had effective possession of the land and had registered it under Land Title in 2007.

Certificate No. GA26393. Additionally, the Sub-lessor acquired the land with Title Certificate No. GA 19310 along with reproductions of the aforementioned Land Title.

The court was presented with Certificate No. GA 19310 and Land Title Certificate No. GA 25462.

Adolf Tetteh stated that Anas Aremeyaw Anas' claim of customary grant of the land to him by a particular Ga family was "simply an attempt to deceive the court."

The Plaintiff informed the court that Anas appeared one day and "caused a signpost to be erected on the land with the inscription "Tiger Eye Property. Additionally, he employed land guardians to ostensibly provide security for his illegal construction activities.

Court Decision

Anas Aremeyaw Anas was ordered by the court to vacate the disputed land and to pay Ghs60,000 in general damages and Ghs40,000 in legal fees to Adolf Tetteh, who presented evidence that he lawfully acquired the land and was about to begin construction when Anas Aremeyaw Anas arrived.


The court said it was permanently restraining Anas Aremeyaw Anas, "his servants, agents, assigns, and workmen, and all those claiming through him, from entering, carrying out any construction work, interfering with, or disturbing the Plaintiff's peaceful occupation and possession of said land in any way"

Tiger Eye P.I. Real Estate Dispute in Court

Anas Aremeyaw Anas filed a motion to exclude Tiger Eye P.I from the lawsuit because it was not a property owner, but the plaintiff insisted that Tiger Eye P.I should be included.

Adolf Tetteh told the court that when Anas seized the disputed land, Anas erected a sign that read "Property of Tiger Eye P.I. Keep Off" According to Adolf Tetteh, he added the company to the lawsuit because the sign indicated that Tiger Eye claimed his property.

The court dismissed Tiger Eye from the case because the second defendant sued with Anas failed to appear or register an appearance. Holy Quaye is the individual from whom Anas claimed to have purchased the land.

"According to the evidence, the Plaintiff owned the land until the 1st Defendant blatantly entered it and began construction day and night with the assistance of the police and land guardians. Clearly, the structures he constructed on the land are unauthorized. Any prudent purchaser is required to conduct due diligence prior to acquisition, but based on the evidence, the 1st Defendant did not. He entered the property and erected a sign with the inscription "PROPERTY OF TIGER EYE." KEEP OFF. When a request was made to add "TIGER EYE PI" to this lawsuit, he objected, arguing that the said entity has no interest in the land. His claim to the contested land lacks legal and factual support. As trespass constitutes an injury to possession, the 1st Defendant is liable. In trespass, damages are substantial, and it would be necessary to award damages commensurate with their magnitude.

the specifics of this case.

This is the second time in a matter of weeks that the court has deemed the investigative journalist liable for some wrongdoing, after a previous court sided with Kennedy Agyapong against the journalist.