A: Introduction
We love anything ‘registration.’ Ghana Card, Voter ID Card, Driver Licence. These are politicians’ play things. With each bout of registration, citizens are assured that it is going to be the last one ever. But within a twinkle of a few years, an honourable man or woman will be tasked to announce the unwelcome news that a previous registration was not fool-proof. Thus, the thoughtful Government in power has found it fit to undertake the exercise afresh. Across the whole country.
Is the entire country’s energy going to be fixed on snaking queues exhibiting the dejected faces of our citizens standing under the scorching sun again?
Yes!
Why?
Why not?
After having been wired to believe that telephone and decoder subscriptions are more important than our lives, we are about to cede our comfort, attention and collective psyche to the telecos for several months once again.
What for?
SIM card re-registration.
All other factors remaining constant, by the end of 2027, a new announcement would usher in the new registration, or better still, re-registration for Voter ID cards for Election 2028.
Why?
Because the one used for Election 2024 was made by the previous government. It is bloated.
But that is what brought you to power?
So what? What brought someone in 2016 was thrown away for the same reason. What’s the big deal?
None at all.
We will continue to do re-registration of car numbers, voter IDs, SIM cards, house numbers, street names and the hair on our heads as we please. In some jurisdictions, there are wars and Presidential abductions. Perhaps we should count ourselves lucky if our price is to undergo perennial registration exercises that only excite politicians and anger citizens. Citizens elsewhere are dealing with far worse.
On the other side of the spectrum are registration exercises that are grounded in law and offer real benefits to citizens. There are specific laws passed by Parliament to regulate how such registration is carried out and the effects thereof. Good examples of such registration regimes are deeds registration and land title registration under the Land Act of 2020.
Land title registration is a system of compulsory registration of land or an interest in land. It guarantees the land owner or proprietor a state-guaranteed and indefeasible title. This article discusses the historical origins of land title registration. It emphasizes the benefits land title confers on property owners. The article further touches on a number of cases on the legal effect of land title decided by the Supreme Court. It also highlights the recent decisions of the Supreme Court which appear to be at variance with the Land Act, 2020’s position that land title is indefeasible, state-guaranteed and unassailable, except in cases of fraud or other proven vitiating factors. The ultimate question posed in this article is this: If land title is defeasible, is it worth the bother?
B: History of land title
Ghana’s land title registration is based on the Torrens title registration system. What is Torrens title registration? ‘Torrens title’ is a land registration and land transfer system in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence (termed “indefeasibility”) of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register.
It derives its name from Sir Robert Richard Torrens (1812–1884), an Australian who designed, lobbied for and introduced the private member's bill which was enacted as the Real Property Act, 1858 in the colony of South Australia, the first version of Torrens title enacted in the world. Torrens based his proposal on many of the ideas of Ulrich Hübbe, a German lawyer living in South Australia.
Under a land title system, ownership of land is transferred by registration of a transfer of title, instead of by the use of deeds. The Land Registrar provides a Certificate of Title (known also as Land Certificate) to the new proprietor, which is merely a copy of the related folio of the register. The main benefit of the system is to enhance certainty of title to land and to simplify dealings involving land.
The Torrens system works on three principles. These are the mirror, curtain and indemnity principles. Each of the principles are explained below.
Mirror principle – the register reflects (mirrors) accurately and completely the current facts about title to each registered lot. This means that each dealing affecting a lot (such as a transfer of title, a mortgage or discharge of same, a lease, an easement or a covenant) must be entered on the register and so be viewable by anyone.
Curtain principle – one does not need to go behind the Land Certificate as it contains all the information about the title. This means that ownership need not be proved by long complicated documents that are kept by the owner, as in the Private Conveyancing system (or the deeds registration system in Ghana). All of the necessary information regarding ownership is on the Certificate of Title.
Indemnity principle – provides for compensation of loss caused by private fraud or by errors made by the Registrar of Titles.[1]
The Torrens system has been adopted by many countries – including, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Turkey. It has been adapted to cover other interests, including credit interests (such as mortgages), leaseholds and strata titles.[2] It is this system that has been adopted for Ghana’s land title registration system.
In Ghana, land title registration was first introduced under the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152). The law provided for compulsory, state-guaranteed and indefeasible title to land. The law has since been repealed and registration of land title (as well as deeds registration) is now regulated by the Land Act, 2020.[3] Much as title registration touts itself as a better form of securing one’s ownership or interest in land, its tortoise-like introduction into different parts of the country gives cause for worry.
The process adopted for introducing land title nationwide has been painfully slow. Since land title registration was introduced in 1986 till date (2026) – a period of 40 years – it only applies to just about 1.6% of the total land area of Ghana. At this rate, it might take a millennium before the whole country would enjoy the benefits of title registration.
C: Qualification for title registration
The law provides that any person who holds an interest in land qualifies to register the land in their name. Such persons include stools and skins, families, companies and individuals. The nature of interest in land that a person can register could be any of the following: Allodial title; common law freehold; customary law freehold; usufructuary interest; leasehold interest of not less than three years remaining; and customary tenancy.[4]
In the case of land belonging to the State, the Land Registrar registers the Republic of Ghana as proprietor of public lands, trustee of lands held by the State in trust, and proprietor of land that is the property of the State by operation of law.[5]
Exceptions where an interest in land cannot be registered: It bears stating, though, that there are two exceptions where an interest in land – which otherwise qualifies for registration – will not be registered. The first exception is that, where an interest in land will automatically expire in less than two years after an application for its registration is filed, such interest in land must not be registered even though it could be renewed on notice after it expires.[6]
The second exception where an interest in land will not be registered under the Land Act relates to licences in respect of minerals granted under the Minerals and Mining Act,[7] or timber rights under the Timber Resources Management Act[8] or any other law.[9]
D: Effect of land title
There are three (3) main effects of registering land title. The first is that an entry in the land register is conclusive evidence of title of the holder of the interest that is stated in the land register.[10] Secondly, the land title certificate holder obtains an indefeasible title.[11] In Brown v Quashigah,[12] Kludze, JSC explained the indefeasibility of registered land title as follows:
“… [T]he rights of a registered proprietor of land acquired for valuable consideration or by an order of a court shall be indefeasible and shall be held by the proprietor together with all privileges and appurtenances attaching thereto free from all other interests and claims whatsoever. An indefeasible title meant a complete answer to all adverse claims on mere production of the certificate.”
Again, in Nantwi & Nantwi v Amenya,[13] the Supreme Court affirmed that as the owner of a land title certificate to the land, the defendant had an indefeasible title to the disputed land. In the absence of proof of any vitiating circumstances such as fraud or mistake, the defendant being the registered proprietor was entitled to be adjudged as the owner of the area comprised in the Land Certificate. Having been declared the registered proprietor, the defendant was held to be entitled to the ancillary orders of recovery of possession and perpetual injunction contained in his counterclaim. Indeed, the rights of a land owner with a registered title are only subject to the interests or other encumbrances and conditions shown in the land register.[14]
The third effect of a land title is that it vests the registered interest in the title holder.[15] It must be noted that the Torrens system of registered title under the Land Act, 2020 is “not a system of registration of title but a system of title by registration.” The title which the Land Certificate describes is not what the registered proprietor formerly had, or which but for registration would have had. The title it certifies is not historical or derivative. It is the title which registration itself has vested in the owner or proprietor.[16]
In effect, from the text of the Land Act, 2020 and the decided cases, once title has been vested in a land owner or proprietor, that is a guarantee by the State of title to the holder of the Land Certificate and to all other persons who want to deal with the owner. An indefeasible title to land essentially suggests that title in a registered property cannot be defeated, cancelled, voided, or nullified by any errors or omissions in the title.[17]
Accordingly, once a proprietor has been entered into the land register, no claim inconsistent with the title on the register can be enforced against the proprietor of the said land. As such, where two or more people are litigating over land and one person has a registered title over the disputed land, his title cannot be challenged even if his conveyance was void or if there were defects with his lessor’s title.[18] Hence, it has been held that a registration which results from a void document is effective according to the terms of the registration. It matters not what caused, or the reasons for which the document is void.[19]
E: Has land title’s ‘indefeasibility’ tag been broken by Adjei v Anas?
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Adolf Tetteh Adjei v Anas Aremeyaw Anas & Another[20]appears to have thrown the whole essence of land title into a quagmire. What happened in Adjei v Anas?
Facts: The brief facts of the case are that a certain East Dadekotopon Development Trust (“EDDT”) obtained a Land Certificate in respect of a tract of land at La, including Tse-Addo in 2003. In 2007, a company called La Hillview Development Ltd bought part of EDDT’s land, registered it and got a Land Certificate of its own. Then in 2015, Adjei (the respondent) also bought part of La Hillview Development Ltd’s land, registered it and obtained a Land Certificate. According to Adjei, the land was bare and he built on it and occupied it peacefully without any interference from anyone.
As time went on, Anas (the appellant) challenged Adjei about his ownership of the land. Anas contended that he had a prior customary oral grant from Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse and Numo Ofoli Kwashie families in 2005. Later in 2013, the family issued him with a lease. Therefore, since his oral customary grant - and later the lease - predated Adjei’s Land Certificate, the latter ought to be cancelled. Anas also argued that he went into possession after his grant was made to him. He further alleged that Adjei obtained his Land Certificate by fraud and that EDDT did not have the full complement of its eight (8) trustees at the time it purportedly made grants of its land to third parties, including La Hillview Development Ltd and by extension Adjei.
High Court and Court of Appeal decisions: Both the trial High Court and first appellate court - Court of Appeal[21] – gave judgment in Adjei’s favour. Anas appealed further to the Supreme Court.
Issue: The narrow issue the Supreme Court had to resolve was this: What was the legal effect of Adjei’s claim under his Land Certificate as against Anas’ counterclaim for title under an unregistered customary grant or lease? Put differently, what is the legal effect of a Land Certificate issued to the proprietor or owner of land?
The Supreme Court’s decision: The Supreme Court took a different view of the case. It overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and gave judgment for Anas. It held that Adjei procured a sub-lease from La Hillview Development Ltd in 2015. He had it registered and was issued with a Land Certificate. But though Adjei successfully registered the land at the Land Title Registry and obtained a Land Certificate for it, the registration did not affect Anas’ earlier customary law grant. Many commentators have expressed disquiet regarding the Supreme Court’s decision. Among them is Mr. Justice Alexander Osei-Tutu, a Justice of the Court of Appeal.[22] In the ensuing section, we discuss the reasons that make the Supreme Court’s decision in Adjei v Anas a touch problematic.
F: A critical analysis of the decision in Adjei v Anas
The decision in Adjei v Anas has once again thrown much needed focus on the legal effect of land title as its thrust and import is antithetical to both statute law and the Supreme Court’s own previous decisions. In the first place, the Supreme Court handled its decision as if section 43 of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152) on indefeasibility of land title never existed. The section - headed “Indefeasibility of registration” – states that the rights of a registered owner or proprietor of land are indefeasible and must be held together with the privileges and appurtenances attached to it free from any other interests and claims.
The only exceptions stated that may defeat a registered title are four (4). These are: (i) Interests or encumbrances and conditions shown in the Land Register;[23] (ii) the proprietor is not relieved from a duty or an obligation to which he is otherwise a trustee;[24] (iii) the registration does not confer any mineral rights on the proprietor;[25] and (iv) a person who holds land on a voluntary basis (without paying for it) does so subject to any unregistered rights, interests or liabilities to which the land was subject when held by the transferor, and subject also to the law of bankruptcy or insolvency and to the winding up provisions of the Companies Act.[26] In the absence of any evidence pointing to any of these four exceptions, it is difficult to support the Supreme Court’s decision.
.
Most tellingly, the Supreme Court also failed or neglected to refer to its earlier decision in Suberu v Davidson & Others[27]which decided the same question of the effect of a registered land title. There, the Court had held that land title conferred an indefeasible title on the land owner. The decision accords with section 43 of the Land Title Registration Act on indefeasibility of land title.
The second critical point is that the Supreme Court discussed and treated the land title registration process and Land Certificate as one would treat and discuss deeds registration. But these are two very distinct registration regimes with different legal outcomes.[28]
Thirdly, the Supreme Court relied on the old case of Anyidoho v Markham[29] to reach its decision. This is a case that was decided almost 80 years before the concept of land title registration was introduced in Ghana in 1986. A relatively modern 1963 case on the effect of registration on customary grants is Darkeh & Another v Lartey.[30]There, the Supreme Court held that the mere existence of a registered conveyance does not give priority against a customary grant provided proof of the grant is available. The Court added that the issue should be determined on the basis of the effectiveness of the grant and the burden of proof rested on the nature of the respective rights upon which the rival claims were founded.
Needless to say, both Anyidoho v Markham[31] and Darkeh & Another v Lartey[32]were decided in an era in Ghana’s history when land title was unknown. Thus, both cases offer little by way of precedential value. Another case that was relied on as precedent in Adjei v Anas is Awudu v Tetteh.[33] It is submitted that the decision in that case was given on wrong principles of law on title registration. The decision failed to recognize the indefeasibility of title registration. A more apposite case would have been Nantwi & Nantwi v Amenya,[34] already referred to in the earlier paragraphs.
Fourthly, the Supreme Court’s decision in Adjei v Anas appears, with respect, to treat the whole regime of land title registration as useless, and not deserving of any attention. The Court’s posture painted a picture that land title was irrelevant when any person challenged a proprietor’s title to the land. The decision risks bastardising the whole concept, intent, purpose and effect of land title.
Fifthly, the Supreme Court directed that the land register must be rectified since both La Hillview Development Ltd and Adjei obtained their land title during a period when there was litigation on the land. The question is, if that was the case, what steps did the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse family and its grantees take under PNDCL 152 to halt the registration process? After all, the law makes provision for caveating under such circumstances.[35] There was no evidence before the Court that the family or its grantees took any steps to inform the Lands Commission of their interest in the land to which Adjei had applied to register title.[36]
Sixthly, the Supreme Court relied heavily on the principles regarding claims based on customary grant as an overriding interest.[37] The position of the law is that where a claim is rooted in customary grant as an overriding interest, certain condition must be met before the claimant will succeed.[38] First of all, the person claiming ownership of the land under customary grant must be in actual occupation of the land. Secondly, the person must have been approached by a new claimant. Thirdly, the person in occupation must have disclosed his interest as a customary grant owner upon the enquiry being made. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to prove that the appellant’s claim under customary grant passed this legal test.
G: Conclusion
There are various regimes for registering land and interests in land in Ghana. This is due to the pluralistic nature of our laws. Customary law, the common law and statute law all have a part to play in the land ownership space. Thus, it is important for litigants and the courts alike to keep the fine but, oftentimes, blurry lines between those varying regimes. The Supreme Court’s decision in Adjei v Anas has brought to the fore the need for the distinction between the different registration regimes to be emphasised.
It is worthy of note that though the law states that land title is indefeasible, the Supreme Court has reached two different conclusions on it. Cases such as Suberu v Davidson & Others[39]and Nantwi & Nantwi v Amenya[40] affirm the indefeasibility of land title principle. Others, including Adolf Tetteh Adjei v Anas Aremeyaw Anas & Another[41]and Awuku v Tetteh[42] hold a contrary view. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will soon find an opportunity to speak with one voice on the legal effect of land title registration.
[1] Ruoff, Theodore B.F, AN ENGLISHMAN LOOKS AT THE TORRENS SYSTEM, Sydney: Law Book Company of Australasia Pty Ltd. p. 106. Information available online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title#:~:text=Torrens%20title%20is%20a%20land,a%20register%20of%20land%20holdings (accessed on 29th May, 2025)
[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title#:~:text=Torrens%20title%20is%20a%20land,a%20register%20of%20land%20holdings (accessed on 6th July, 2025)
[3] Act 1036
[4] Section 83 (1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[5] Section 83 (2) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[6] Section 83 (4) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[7] 2006 (Act 703)
[8] 1998 (Act 547)
[9] Section 83 (5) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[10] Section 111 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) provides: “(1) An entry in the land register shall be conclusive evidence of title of the holder of the interest specified in the land register. (2) Subsection (1) does not affect any right or interest in land acquired under the law relating to prescription or the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54) except that where title to registered land has been acquired under the law relating to prescription or the Limitation Act, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 54), the registered holder of the right or interest shall hold the land in trust for the person entitled. (3) A person who claims to have acquired land or an interest in land under subsection (2), shall apply to the Regional Lands Commission through the Regional Lands Officer for an appropriate amendment to be made to the land register upon the payment of a prescribed fee.” See: Amegatcher, JSC in Suberu v Davidson & Others Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC
[11] Section 119 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) states: (1) … the rights of a registered proprietor of a parcel of land whether acquired on first registration or subsequently or by an order of a Court are indefeasible and shall be held by the proprietor together with the rights and privileges a attaching to the parcel of land free from all other interests and claims. (2) The rights of a proprietor are subject to the interests or other encumbrances and conditions, shown in the land register. (3) This section does not relieve a proprietor from a duty or an obligation to which the proprietor is otherwise subject as a trustee. (4) The registration of a person as the proprietor of land or a holder of an interest in land does not confer on that person a right to minerals in the natural state in, under or upon, the land.” See: Amegatcher, JSC in Suberu v Davidson & Others Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC
[12] [2003-2004] SCGLR 930
[13] [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 972 at 983. The case was decided under section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1996 (PNDCL 152) which is now section 119 (1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[14] Section 119 (2) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[15] Section 120 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) stipulates as follows: “The registration of a person as a proprietor of an interest in land (a) vests in that person the interest described in the acquisition or transaction by which the interest was created, together with the implied and express rights and privileges attaching or appertaining to that land and subject to the implied and express covenants, liabilities and any other incidents; and
(b) shall not cause the benefit or burden of any rights, privileges or covenants to pass to a transferee of (i) the land; or (ii) an interest in land, if the benefit or burden of the rights, privileges or covenants would not otherwise pass to the transferee.” See: Brown v Quarshigah [2003-2004] SCGLR 930
[16] Dictum of Barwick, CJ in Breskvar v Wall [1971] 126 CLR 376 at 385
[17] Dictum of Amegatcher, JSC in Suberu v Davidson & Others Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC
[18] Same place
[19] Barwick, CJ in Breskvar v Wall [1971] 126 CLR 376
[20] Civil Appeal No. J4/08/2025 judgment dated 12th November, 2025, SC
[21] By a 2-1 majority decision
[22] A. Osei-Tutu, “Land Registration in Ghana: A Tale of Multiple Registration Regimes” (20th January, 2026) available at https://ghanalawhub.com/land-registration-in-ghana-a-tale-of-multiple-registration-regimes/
(accessed on 27th March, 2026)
[23] Section 43 (2) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
[24] Section 43 (3) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
[25] Section 43 (4) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
[26] Section 48 (1) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
[27] Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC. The Presiding Justice in Adjei v v Anas was a member of the panel that gave the unanimous decision in Suberu v Davidson & Others (above)
[28] For a detailed discussion of the distinction between the two registration regimes, see: Francisca Serwaa Boateng, LAND LAW (Vol. 1) (2025) p. 758
[29] [1095] Ren. 318 FC. The fact that this case was referred to in Brown v Quashiga [2003-2004] SCGLR 941 - albeit per incuriam in my view - does not justify its re-citation in the instant case of Adjei v Anas
[30] [1963] 1 GLR 362, SC (Coram: Ollennu, Blay & Akufo-Addo, JJ.SC)
[31] [1095] Ren. 318 FC. The fact that this case was referred to in Brown v Quashiga [2003-2004] SCGLR 941 - albeit per incuriam in my view - does not justify its re-citation in the instant case of Adjei v Anas
[32] [1963] 1 GLR 362, SC (Coram: Ollennu, Blay & Akufo-Addo, JJ.SC)
[33] [2011] 1 SCGLR 366
[34] [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 972 at 983. The case was decided under section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1996 (PNDCL 152) which is now section 119 (1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[35] A “caveat” means a formal request that prohibits the registration of a disposition and the making of an entry on a land certificate or register to the extent specified in the certificate or register; see: Section 282 of the Land Act, 2020. For the procedure for lodging caveats against registration, see sections 184-190 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) and under the repealed PNDCL 152, see sections 111-117
[36] See: Buildaf Ltd v Registered Trustees of the Catholic Church, Achimota [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 1045
where the Supreme Court found that the appellants had failed to disclose to the land registrar that there were two cases pending before the High Court during the registration period
[37] For more on overriding interests, see: Francisca Serwaa Boateng, LAND LAW (Vol. 1) (2025) p. 606-609
[38] Section 121 (1) (f) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[39] Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC. The Presiding Justice in Adjei v v Anas was a member of the panel that gave the unanimous decision in Suberu v Davidson & Others (above)
[40] [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 972 at 983. The case was decided under section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1996 (PNDCL 152) which is now section 119 (1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[41] Civil Appeal No. J4/08/2025 judgment dated 12th November, 2025, SC
[42] [2011] 1 SCGLR 366
We love anything ‘registration.’ Ghana Card, Voter ID Card, Driver Licence. These are politicians’ play things. With each bout of registration, citizens are assured that it is going to be the last one ever. But within a twinkle of a few years, an honourable man or woman will be tasked to announce the unwelcome news that a previous registration was not fool-proof. Thus, the thoughtful Government in power has found it fit to undertake the exercise afresh. Across the whole country.
Is the entire country’s energy going to be fixed on snaking queues exhibiting the dejected faces of our citizens standing under the scorching sun again?
Yes!
Why?
Why not?
After having been wired to believe that telephone and decoder subscriptions are more important than our lives, we are about to cede our comfort, attention and collective psyche to the telecos for several months once again.
What for?
SIM card re-registration.
All other factors remaining constant, by the end of 2027, a new announcement would usher in the new registration, or better still, re-registration for Voter ID cards for Election 2028.
Why?
Because the one used for Election 2024 was made by the previous government. It is bloated.
But that is what brought you to power?
So what? What brought someone in 2016 was thrown away for the same reason. What’s the big deal?
None at all.
We will continue to do re-registration of car numbers, voter IDs, SIM cards, house numbers, street names and the hair on our heads as we please. In some jurisdictions, there are wars and Presidential abductions. Perhaps we should count ourselves lucky if our price is to undergo perennial registration exercises that only excite politicians and anger citizens. Citizens elsewhere are dealing with far worse.
On the other side of the spectrum are registration exercises that are grounded in law and offer real benefits to citizens. There are specific laws passed by Parliament to regulate how such registration is carried out and the effects thereof. Good examples of such registration regimes are deeds registration and land title registration under the Land Act of 2020.
Land title registration is a system of compulsory registration of land or an interest in land. It guarantees the land owner or proprietor a state-guaranteed and indefeasible title. This article discusses the historical origins of land title registration. It emphasizes the benefits land title confers on property owners. The article further touches on a number of cases on the legal effect of land title decided by the Supreme Court. It also highlights the recent decisions of the Supreme Court which appear to be at variance with the Land Act, 2020’s position that land title is indefeasible, state-guaranteed and unassailable, except in cases of fraud or other proven vitiating factors. The ultimate question posed in this article is this: If land title is defeasible, is it worth the bother?
B: History of land title
Ghana’s land title registration is based on the Torrens title registration system. What is Torrens title registration? ‘Torrens title’ is a land registration and land transfer system in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence (termed “indefeasibility”) of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register.
It derives its name from Sir Robert Richard Torrens (1812–1884), an Australian who designed, lobbied for and introduced the private member's bill which was enacted as the Real Property Act, 1858 in the colony of South Australia, the first version of Torrens title enacted in the world. Torrens based his proposal on many of the ideas of Ulrich Hübbe, a German lawyer living in South Australia.
Under a land title system, ownership of land is transferred by registration of a transfer of title, instead of by the use of deeds. The Land Registrar provides a Certificate of Title (known also as Land Certificate) to the new proprietor, which is merely a copy of the related folio of the register. The main benefit of the system is to enhance certainty of title to land and to simplify dealings involving land.
The Torrens system works on three principles. These are the mirror, curtain and indemnity principles. Each of the principles are explained below.
Mirror principle – the register reflects (mirrors) accurately and completely the current facts about title to each registered lot. This means that each dealing affecting a lot (such as a transfer of title, a mortgage or discharge of same, a lease, an easement or a covenant) must be entered on the register and so be viewable by anyone.
Curtain principle – one does not need to go behind the Land Certificate as it contains all the information about the title. This means that ownership need not be proved by long complicated documents that are kept by the owner, as in the Private Conveyancing system (or the deeds registration system in Ghana). All of the necessary information regarding ownership is on the Certificate of Title.
Indemnity principle – provides for compensation of loss caused by private fraud or by errors made by the Registrar of Titles.[1]
The Torrens system has been adopted by many countries – including, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Turkey. It has been adapted to cover other interests, including credit interests (such as mortgages), leaseholds and strata titles.[2] It is this system that has been adopted for Ghana’s land title registration system.
In Ghana, land title registration was first introduced under the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152). The law provided for compulsory, state-guaranteed and indefeasible title to land. The law has since been repealed and registration of land title (as well as deeds registration) is now regulated by the Land Act, 2020.[3] Much as title registration touts itself as a better form of securing one’s ownership or interest in land, its tortoise-like introduction into different parts of the country gives cause for worry.
The process adopted for introducing land title nationwide has been painfully slow. Since land title registration was introduced in 1986 till date (2026) – a period of 40 years – it only applies to just about 1.6% of the total land area of Ghana. At this rate, it might take a millennium before the whole country would enjoy the benefits of title registration.
C: Qualification for title registration
The law provides that any person who holds an interest in land qualifies to register the land in their name. Such persons include stools and skins, families, companies and individuals. The nature of interest in land that a person can register could be any of the following: Allodial title; common law freehold; customary law freehold; usufructuary interest; leasehold interest of not less than three years remaining; and customary tenancy.[4]
In the case of land belonging to the State, the Land Registrar registers the Republic of Ghana as proprietor of public lands, trustee of lands held by the State in trust, and proprietor of land that is the property of the State by operation of law.[5]
Exceptions where an interest in land cannot be registered: It bears stating, though, that there are two exceptions where an interest in land – which otherwise qualifies for registration – will not be registered. The first exception is that, where an interest in land will automatically expire in less than two years after an application for its registration is filed, such interest in land must not be registered even though it could be renewed on notice after it expires.[6]
The second exception where an interest in land will not be registered under the Land Act relates to licences in respect of minerals granted under the Minerals and Mining Act,[7] or timber rights under the Timber Resources Management Act[8] or any other law.[9]
D: Effect of land title
There are three (3) main effects of registering land title. The first is that an entry in the land register is conclusive evidence of title of the holder of the interest that is stated in the land register.[10] Secondly, the land title certificate holder obtains an indefeasible title.[11] In Brown v Quashigah,[12] Kludze, JSC explained the indefeasibility of registered land title as follows:
“… [T]he rights of a registered proprietor of land acquired for valuable consideration or by an order of a court shall be indefeasible and shall be held by the proprietor together with all privileges and appurtenances attaching thereto free from all other interests and claims whatsoever. An indefeasible title meant a complete answer to all adverse claims on mere production of the certificate.”
Again, in Nantwi & Nantwi v Amenya,[13] the Supreme Court affirmed that as the owner of a land title certificate to the land, the defendant had an indefeasible title to the disputed land. In the absence of proof of any vitiating circumstances such as fraud or mistake, the defendant being the registered proprietor was entitled to be adjudged as the owner of the area comprised in the Land Certificate. Having been declared the registered proprietor, the defendant was held to be entitled to the ancillary orders of recovery of possession and perpetual injunction contained in his counterclaim. Indeed, the rights of a land owner with a registered title are only subject to the interests or other encumbrances and conditions shown in the land register.[14]
The third effect of a land title is that it vests the registered interest in the title holder.[15] It must be noted that the Torrens system of registered title under the Land Act, 2020 is “not a system of registration of title but a system of title by registration.” The title which the Land Certificate describes is not what the registered proprietor formerly had, or which but for registration would have had. The title it certifies is not historical or derivative. It is the title which registration itself has vested in the owner or proprietor.[16]
In effect, from the text of the Land Act, 2020 and the decided cases, once title has been vested in a land owner or proprietor, that is a guarantee by the State of title to the holder of the Land Certificate and to all other persons who want to deal with the owner. An indefeasible title to land essentially suggests that title in a registered property cannot be defeated, cancelled, voided, or nullified by any errors or omissions in the title.[17]
Accordingly, once a proprietor has been entered into the land register, no claim inconsistent with the title on the register can be enforced against the proprietor of the said land. As such, where two or more people are litigating over land and one person has a registered title over the disputed land, his title cannot be challenged even if his conveyance was void or if there were defects with his lessor’s title.[18] Hence, it has been held that a registration which results from a void document is effective according to the terms of the registration. It matters not what caused, or the reasons for which the document is void.[19]
E: Has land title’s ‘indefeasibility’ tag been broken by Adjei v Anas?
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Adolf Tetteh Adjei v Anas Aremeyaw Anas & Another[20]appears to have thrown the whole essence of land title into a quagmire. What happened in Adjei v Anas?
Facts: The brief facts of the case are that a certain East Dadekotopon Development Trust (“EDDT”) obtained a Land Certificate in respect of a tract of land at La, including Tse-Addo in 2003. In 2007, a company called La Hillview Development Ltd bought part of EDDT’s land, registered it and got a Land Certificate of its own. Then in 2015, Adjei (the respondent) also bought part of La Hillview Development Ltd’s land, registered it and obtained a Land Certificate. According to Adjei, the land was bare and he built on it and occupied it peacefully without any interference from anyone.
As time went on, Anas (the appellant) challenged Adjei about his ownership of the land. Anas contended that he had a prior customary oral grant from Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse and Numo Ofoli Kwashie families in 2005. Later in 2013, the family issued him with a lease. Therefore, since his oral customary grant - and later the lease - predated Adjei’s Land Certificate, the latter ought to be cancelled. Anas also argued that he went into possession after his grant was made to him. He further alleged that Adjei obtained his Land Certificate by fraud and that EDDT did not have the full complement of its eight (8) trustees at the time it purportedly made grants of its land to third parties, including La Hillview Development Ltd and by extension Adjei.
High Court and Court of Appeal decisions: Both the trial High Court and first appellate court - Court of Appeal[21] – gave judgment in Adjei’s favour. Anas appealed further to the Supreme Court.
Issue: The narrow issue the Supreme Court had to resolve was this: What was the legal effect of Adjei’s claim under his Land Certificate as against Anas’ counterclaim for title under an unregistered customary grant or lease? Put differently, what is the legal effect of a Land Certificate issued to the proprietor or owner of land?
The Supreme Court’s decision: The Supreme Court took a different view of the case. It overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and gave judgment for Anas. It held that Adjei procured a sub-lease from La Hillview Development Ltd in 2015. He had it registered and was issued with a Land Certificate. But though Adjei successfully registered the land at the Land Title Registry and obtained a Land Certificate for it, the registration did not affect Anas’ earlier customary law grant. Many commentators have expressed disquiet regarding the Supreme Court’s decision. Among them is Mr. Justice Alexander Osei-Tutu, a Justice of the Court of Appeal.[22] In the ensuing section, we discuss the reasons that make the Supreme Court’s decision in Adjei v Anas a touch problematic.
F: A critical analysis of the decision in Adjei v Anas
The decision in Adjei v Anas has once again thrown much needed focus on the legal effect of land title as its thrust and import is antithetical to both statute law and the Supreme Court’s own previous decisions. In the first place, the Supreme Court handled its decision as if section 43 of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152) on indefeasibility of land title never existed. The section - headed “Indefeasibility of registration” – states that the rights of a registered owner or proprietor of land are indefeasible and must be held together with the privileges and appurtenances attached to it free from any other interests and claims.
The only exceptions stated that may defeat a registered title are four (4). These are: (i) Interests or encumbrances and conditions shown in the Land Register;[23] (ii) the proprietor is not relieved from a duty or an obligation to which he is otherwise a trustee;[24] (iii) the registration does not confer any mineral rights on the proprietor;[25] and (iv) a person who holds land on a voluntary basis (without paying for it) does so subject to any unregistered rights, interests or liabilities to which the land was subject when held by the transferor, and subject also to the law of bankruptcy or insolvency and to the winding up provisions of the Companies Act.[26] In the absence of any evidence pointing to any of these four exceptions, it is difficult to support the Supreme Court’s decision.
.
Most tellingly, the Supreme Court also failed or neglected to refer to its earlier decision in Suberu v Davidson & Others[27]which decided the same question of the effect of a registered land title. There, the Court had held that land title conferred an indefeasible title on the land owner. The decision accords with section 43 of the Land Title Registration Act on indefeasibility of land title.
The second critical point is that the Supreme Court discussed and treated the land title registration process and Land Certificate as one would treat and discuss deeds registration. But these are two very distinct registration regimes with different legal outcomes.[28]
Thirdly, the Supreme Court relied on the old case of Anyidoho v Markham[29] to reach its decision. This is a case that was decided almost 80 years before the concept of land title registration was introduced in Ghana in 1986. A relatively modern 1963 case on the effect of registration on customary grants is Darkeh & Another v Lartey.[30]There, the Supreme Court held that the mere existence of a registered conveyance does not give priority against a customary grant provided proof of the grant is available. The Court added that the issue should be determined on the basis of the effectiveness of the grant and the burden of proof rested on the nature of the respective rights upon which the rival claims were founded.
Needless to say, both Anyidoho v Markham[31] and Darkeh & Another v Lartey[32]were decided in an era in Ghana’s history when land title was unknown. Thus, both cases offer little by way of precedential value. Another case that was relied on as precedent in Adjei v Anas is Awudu v Tetteh.[33] It is submitted that the decision in that case was given on wrong principles of law on title registration. The decision failed to recognize the indefeasibility of title registration. A more apposite case would have been Nantwi & Nantwi v Amenya,[34] already referred to in the earlier paragraphs.
Fourthly, the Supreme Court’s decision in Adjei v Anas appears, with respect, to treat the whole regime of land title registration as useless, and not deserving of any attention. The Court’s posture painted a picture that land title was irrelevant when any person challenged a proprietor’s title to the land. The decision risks bastardising the whole concept, intent, purpose and effect of land title.
Fifthly, the Supreme Court directed that the land register must be rectified since both La Hillview Development Ltd and Adjei obtained their land title during a period when there was litigation on the land. The question is, if that was the case, what steps did the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse family and its grantees take under PNDCL 152 to halt the registration process? After all, the law makes provision for caveating under such circumstances.[35] There was no evidence before the Court that the family or its grantees took any steps to inform the Lands Commission of their interest in the land to which Adjei had applied to register title.[36]
Sixthly, the Supreme Court relied heavily on the principles regarding claims based on customary grant as an overriding interest.[37] The position of the law is that where a claim is rooted in customary grant as an overriding interest, certain condition must be met before the claimant will succeed.[38] First of all, the person claiming ownership of the land under customary grant must be in actual occupation of the land. Secondly, the person must have been approached by a new claimant. Thirdly, the person in occupation must have disclosed his interest as a customary grant owner upon the enquiry being made. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to prove that the appellant’s claim under customary grant passed this legal test.
G: Conclusion
There are various regimes for registering land and interests in land in Ghana. This is due to the pluralistic nature of our laws. Customary law, the common law and statute law all have a part to play in the land ownership space. Thus, it is important for litigants and the courts alike to keep the fine but, oftentimes, blurry lines between those varying regimes. The Supreme Court’s decision in Adjei v Anas has brought to the fore the need for the distinction between the different registration regimes to be emphasised.
It is worthy of note that though the law states that land title is indefeasible, the Supreme Court has reached two different conclusions on it. Cases such as Suberu v Davidson & Others[39]and Nantwi & Nantwi v Amenya[40] affirm the indefeasibility of land title principle. Others, including Adolf Tetteh Adjei v Anas Aremeyaw Anas & Another[41]and Awuku v Tetteh[42] hold a contrary view. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will soon find an opportunity to speak with one voice on the legal effect of land title registration.
[1] Ruoff, Theodore B.F, AN ENGLISHMAN LOOKS AT THE TORRENS SYSTEM, Sydney: Law Book Company of Australasia Pty Ltd. p. 106. Information available online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title#:~:text=Torrens%20title%20is%20a%20land,a%20register%20of%20land%20holdings (accessed on 29th May, 2025)
[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title#:~:text=Torrens%20title%20is%20a%20land,a%20register%20of%20land%20holdings (accessed on 6th July, 2025)
[3] Act 1036
[4] Section 83 (1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[5] Section 83 (2) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[6] Section 83 (4) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[7] 2006 (Act 703)
[8] 1998 (Act 547)
[9] Section 83 (5) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[10] Section 111 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) provides: “(1) An entry in the land register shall be conclusive evidence of title of the holder of the interest specified in the land register. (2) Subsection (1) does not affect any right or interest in land acquired under the law relating to prescription or the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54) except that where title to registered land has been acquired under the law relating to prescription or the Limitation Act, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 54), the registered holder of the right or interest shall hold the land in trust for the person entitled. (3) A person who claims to have acquired land or an interest in land under subsection (2), shall apply to the Regional Lands Commission through the Regional Lands Officer for an appropriate amendment to be made to the land register upon the payment of a prescribed fee.” See: Amegatcher, JSC in Suberu v Davidson & Others Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC
[11] Section 119 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) states: (1) … the rights of a registered proprietor of a parcel of land whether acquired on first registration or subsequently or by an order of a Court are indefeasible and shall be held by the proprietor together with the rights and privileges a attaching to the parcel of land free from all other interests and claims. (2) The rights of a proprietor are subject to the interests or other encumbrances and conditions, shown in the land register. (3) This section does not relieve a proprietor from a duty or an obligation to which the proprietor is otherwise subject as a trustee. (4) The registration of a person as the proprietor of land or a holder of an interest in land does not confer on that person a right to minerals in the natural state in, under or upon, the land.” See: Amegatcher, JSC in Suberu v Davidson & Others Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC
[12] [2003-2004] SCGLR 930
[13] [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 972 at 983. The case was decided under section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1996 (PNDCL 152) which is now section 119 (1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[14] Section 119 (2) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[15] Section 120 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) stipulates as follows: “The registration of a person as a proprietor of an interest in land (a) vests in that person the interest described in the acquisition or transaction by which the interest was created, together with the implied and express rights and privileges attaching or appertaining to that land and subject to the implied and express covenants, liabilities and any other incidents; and
(b) shall not cause the benefit or burden of any rights, privileges or covenants to pass to a transferee of (i) the land; or (ii) an interest in land, if the benefit or burden of the rights, privileges or covenants would not otherwise pass to the transferee.” See: Brown v Quarshigah [2003-2004] SCGLR 930
[16] Dictum of Barwick, CJ in Breskvar v Wall [1971] 126 CLR 376 at 385
[17] Dictum of Amegatcher, JSC in Suberu v Davidson & Others Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC
[18] Same place
[19] Barwick, CJ in Breskvar v Wall [1971] 126 CLR 376
[20] Civil Appeal No. J4/08/2025 judgment dated 12th November, 2025, SC
[21] By a 2-1 majority decision
[22] A. Osei-Tutu, “Land Registration in Ghana: A Tale of Multiple Registration Regimes” (20th January, 2026) available at https://ghanalawhub.com/land-registration-in-ghana-a-tale-of-multiple-registration-regimes/
(accessed on 27th March, 2026)
[23] Section 43 (2) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
[24] Section 43 (3) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
[25] Section 43 (4) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
[26] Section 48 (1) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
[27] Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC. The Presiding Justice in Adjei v v Anas was a member of the panel that gave the unanimous decision in Suberu v Davidson & Others (above)
[28] For a detailed discussion of the distinction between the two registration regimes, see: Francisca Serwaa Boateng, LAND LAW (Vol. 1) (2025) p. 758
[29] [1095] Ren. 318 FC. The fact that this case was referred to in Brown v Quashiga [2003-2004] SCGLR 941 - albeit per incuriam in my view - does not justify its re-citation in the instant case of Adjei v Anas
[30] [1963] 1 GLR 362, SC (Coram: Ollennu, Blay & Akufo-Addo, JJ.SC)
[31] [1095] Ren. 318 FC. The fact that this case was referred to in Brown v Quashiga [2003-2004] SCGLR 941 - albeit per incuriam in my view - does not justify its re-citation in the instant case of Adjei v Anas
[32] [1963] 1 GLR 362, SC (Coram: Ollennu, Blay & Akufo-Addo, JJ.SC)
[33] [2011] 1 SCGLR 366
[34] [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 972 at 983. The case was decided under section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1996 (PNDCL 152) which is now section 119 (1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[35] A “caveat” means a formal request that prohibits the registration of a disposition and the making of an entry on a land certificate or register to the extent specified in the certificate or register; see: Section 282 of the Land Act, 2020. For the procedure for lodging caveats against registration, see sections 184-190 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) and under the repealed PNDCL 152, see sections 111-117
[36] See: Buildaf Ltd v Registered Trustees of the Catholic Church, Achimota [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 1045
where the Supreme Court found that the appellants had failed to disclose to the land registrar that there were two cases pending before the High Court during the registration period
[37] For more on overriding interests, see: Francisca Serwaa Boateng, LAND LAW (Vol. 1) (2025) p. 606-609
[38] Section 121 (1) (f) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[39] Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021 judgment dated 10th May, 2023, SC. The Presiding Justice in Adjei v v Anas was a member of the panel that gave the unanimous decision in Suberu v Davidson & Others (above)
[40] [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 972 at 983. The case was decided under section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1996 (PNDCL 152) which is now section 119 (1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
[41] Civil Appeal No. J4/08/2025 judgment dated 12th November, 2025, SC
[42] [2011] 1 SCGLR 366
