The Supreme court has put to rest the ownership dispute of the New Danchira lands in the Greater Accra Region, after about eight years of legal battle.

The case, which traveled through the High court to the highest court of the land, saw the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Sophia Adinyira affirming the Court of appeal's decision that Nii Djan-Bi Amu is the legitimate owner of the disputed land.

Other members of the panel include Justices Anin-Yeboah, Sule Gbadegbe, Vida Akoto-Bamfo and Joseph B. Akamba.

According to the court there is sufficient evidence on record to support the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Nii Tackie Amoah VI, Head of the Nii Djan-Bi Amu family had engaged Nii Armah Okine, head of the Amanfro family, Numo Kankam, Principal elder of Amanfro, Nii Noi Morton, a Real Estate developer, Jonah Yaw Ayitey, an Estate agent and the Lands Commission (LC)  in a legal tussle in the high court over the ownership of a piece of land that falls within the borders of the two families in Danchira.

The plaintiff, head of the Nii Djan-Bi Amu family, sought among other claims, a declaration of title for the land area of about 13,774 acres in New Danchira, damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction against the defendants.

The Danchira family shares boundary with the Amanfro family and both had registered their lands with the Lands Commission.

According to the plaintiff, his family granted portions of their land to some people and their search at the Lands Commission indicates that portions of their land had been registered in the name of Morton and Ayitey, all defendants in the case, who claimed it was the then chief of Amanfro, Nii Kwashie Gborlor III, who granted them the portions of the land.

Having been granted the land, Morton and Ayitey started developing the land, claiming the lands granted them fall within the Ngleshie Amanfro lands and that if any of the lands granted them belongs to the people of Danchira, then it must have been authorized by the true heads of Danchira.

At the end of trial at the High court, the court dismissed the case of the plaintiff on the grounds that he failed to establish the identity of land he is claiming.

However, the plaintiff succeeded on appeal and the court grant him all the reliefs sought.

Not satisfied with the decision of the Appeal Court, the defendant went on a further appeal at the Supreme Court, which failed.

The Supreme court therefore found the case of the plaintiff justifiable and further endorse the decisions of the Court of Appeal, declaring plaintiff and his family as rightful owners of the disputed land.