The Supreme Court by a split decision of 3:2 has upheld an appeal filed on behalf of Sino Africa Development Company Ltd., signaling the abhorrence of the law to transfers made in anticipation and predating due release of compulsorily acquired land back to owners.

In a delightful 92-page judgment of the Supreme Court in the June, 2026 case of SINO AFRICA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD v. ROYAL BELL INVESTMENTS LTD & ORS [TLP-SC-2026-61], the Supreme Court delectably discussed land law principles of possession; the doctrine of feeding the estoppel; stamping; and identity of a land.

In such majestic display of judicial wit and legal effusions, the Supreme Court in the dual voice of Bartels-Kodwo and Tanko Amadu, JJSC who enjoyed the support of Asiedu, JSC fleshed out the position of the law when there is a clash of equity and law in land transfers where the said transfers are done by owners of land in anticipation of a release of their land back to them by the State. That is, the fate of a land transfer where the vendor or lessor sold the land at a time the land was compulsorily acquired but in anticipation of a release of the land by the state back to the said pre-acquisition owners.

STAR OF THE MONTH - His Lordship Justice Nana Barima Yaw Kodie Oppong, JA

X OXFORD ARBITRATION DAY

In their forceful delivery and in the voice of the judicially prolific Tanko Amadu, JSC, the Supreme Court held that its decision to reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeal in the matter was also on legal policy grounds.

In the words of Tanko Amadu, JSC, at page 52 of the decision and at paragraphs 60 and 61 of his opinion;

"(60) Finally let me say with emphasis that, my position in this appeal is anchored by the principle at stake which in my view, is one which traverses and reaches far beyond this dispute, for it determines whether the statutory vesting of land in the State may be circumvented by those who deal in it before its release, in the hope that equity will afterwards bless their known illegal dealings which is suggestive of dishonesty and self-inflicted injury.

(61) To that question, the answer must be no and I say so without reservation if we must live in an orderly society. The result is one in which law and equity, far from being at variance, are at one: the honest purchaser for value is protected, and the knowing dealer in forbidden and encumbered land is left to the consequences of the bargain he chose to make. And I respectfully so hold."

Case Facts

The facts of the case are without much controversy. The Appellant at the Supreme Court through the Lawyers led by the experienced Osafo Buabeng acquired their land spanning some 328 acres from their lessors after the State had returned the said lands to the original owners who were their grantors.

In the case of the Respondents, they acquired their land at the time when the land was compulsorily acquired by the state, and in the words of Justice Amadu Tanko, in terms of title "the slate" swept "clean." The Court from the High to the Supreme Court was thus faced with setting aside the said transfers after the compulsory acquisition or conferring rights on the Respondents by the application of the doctrine of feeding the estoppel.

READ/DOWNLOAD FULL CASE HERE