The East Dadekotopon Development Trust (EDDT) has firmly rejected claims that its extensive landholding at Tse-Addo in Accra has been revoked by the Supreme Court, describing such assertions as false, legally misleading and deliberately intended to deceive the public.

Addressing a press conference in Accra, the Trust warned of what it called a worsening security situation in the Tse-Addo area, following reported incidents of harassment, intimidation and unlawful entry onto its lands by individuals allegedly acting as judgment creditors with the support of known land guards.

According to the EDDT, reports suggesting that its 2,150-acre land title was annulled by a Supreme Court judgment delivered on 12 November 2025 represent “a gross misinterpretation of the decision and a distortion of settled law”.

“The Supreme Court judgment of 12 November 2025 did not revoke, cancel or nullify the title of the East Dadekotopon Development Trust,” the Chairman of the Trust, Mr Joseph Nii Annan Larbi, stated.
“The 2023 Supreme Court judgment which affirmed and vested title to the 2,150 acres in the EDDT remains valid, binding and enforceable.”

Long-running dispute

The Tse-Addo land dispute has spanned several decades and has generated multiple court proceedings, culminating in a number of Supreme Court decisions. The most recent judgment, delivered on 12 November 2025, is currently the subject of a pending application for review filed on or about 11 December 2025.

Mr Larbi accused some judgment creditors of deliberately misrepresenting the effect of the 2025 ruling to create the impression that the Trust’s title has been extinguished.

“These false claims are being weaponised to harass lawful occupants, extort money from lessees and create fear and instability on the land,” he said.
“They should be ignored and firmly resisted.”

Scope of the Supreme Court decision

The Trust provided a detailed legal explanation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Civil Appeal No. J4/08/2025, a case contested principally between Mr Adolph Tetteh Adjei, whose claim was traced to a grantee of the EDDT, and investigative journalist Mr Anas Aremeyaw Anas, whose interest was derived from the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse Family. Mr Holy Quaye was joined as a second defendant.

According to the EDDT, the plaintiff commenced the action on the strength of a grant from La Hillsview Development Ltd, seeking a declaration of title and injunctive reliefs. The first defendant, who later became the appellant at the Supreme Court, counterclaimed for, among other reliefs, a declaration that the Trust Deed and related consent judgments were void for fraud, and an order setting aside those judgments.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court examined whether the then chairman of the Trust had the authority to execute a lease to La Hillsview Development Ltd without the concurrence of the other trustees. The court held that there was no evidence of such concurrence, rendering that particular conveyance irregular and liable to be set aside.

However, the Trust stressed that the finding was narrow in scope.
“This decision was limited strictly to the grant by Seth M. Odoi to La Hillsview Development Ltd,” the EDDT explained.
“It does not preclude any other grantee of the Trust from proving that their grant was made with the concurrence of all valid and registered trustees.”

Crucially, the Trust noted that the Supreme Court expressly declined to grant the counterclaim reliefs that sought to undermine the very foundation of the EDDT.

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.”

According to Mr Larbi, this statement is decisive.
“The Supreme Court was careful not to pronounce on the validity of the 2001 High Court consent judgment establishing the EDDT, nor the 2015 consent judgment of the Court of Appeal,” he said.
“Those matters are currently before the High Court for determination.”

Trust not a party to the suit

The EDDT further emphasised that it was not a party to the Supreme Court action at all, noting that the dispute was between three individuals and concerned land measuring only two acres.

“This alone significantly limits the reach and legal effect of the judgment,” the Trust said, adding that even in respect of the two-acre parcel, its rights to pursue any claims remain intact.

Earlier Supreme Court affirmations

Beyond the November 2025 ruling, the Trust cited several binding Supreme Court decisions confirming its ownership of lands covered by Land Certificate Number GA 19310, dated October 2003, including against claims by the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse and Numo Ofoli Kwashie families.

These include decisions delivered on 19 November 2019 and 22 July 2020, in which the Supreme Court quashed earlier High Court rulings that had sought to cancel the Trust’s land certificate. In the 2020 decision, the apex court reaffirmed that consent judgments are binding as contracts and can only be set aside through a fresh action meeting strict legal requirements.

“No court of competent jurisdiction has cancelled or nullified the Trust’s Land Certificate Number GA 19310,” the EDDT insisted.
“Any claim to the contrary is false and intended to deceive and extort money from legitimate grantees.”

Security concerns

Despite what it described as legal clarity, the Trust said it had received reports of unlawful activities by land guards and other individuals allegedly acting on behalf of rival claimant families, purportedly justified by reference to the November 2025 judgment.

A tenant, Ms Gifty Terper, a neuro-nurse at the First American Medical Center, described persistent harassment in the area.
“The situation is becoming unbearable,” she said, warning that the intimidation could force a leading neurosurgeon to leave the country.

The EDDT has appealed to National Security and other law enforcement agencies to intervene decisively to prevent violence and protect lawful occupants.

“Ghana is governed by the rule of law,” the Trust said.
“Possession or delivery of possession can only be effected through lawful judicial processes, not threats, vigilantism or violence.”

The Trust advised its grantees and lessees to remain calm and vigilant, and to report any threats or attacks to the appropriate authorities, stressing that peace and stability are essential for development in La and the country as a whole.