In the heart of Prampram, a seething land dispute has escalated from courtrooms into public contention, pitting Titanium 123 Properties Ltd, against Kofi Abban Holdings, Menlix Ventures, and the Lands Commission, amidst explosive allegations, court injunctions, and spiralling media narratives.
At the center of the storm is an ongoing battle over 22 acres of prime land in Prampram, with all sides locked in legal warfare.
While the dispute simmers in the courts, recent media reports suggest chaos on the ground – implicating so-called “boys” linked to Kofi Abban in alleged acts of aggression and illegal development on the disputed site.
There is police presence on the disputed land allegedly deployed by Kofi Abban of Kofi Abban Holdings, a claimant leading to destruction of properties belonging to Titanium 123 Properties on the said land.
The backlash prompted an official rejoinder issued by businessman Kofi Amoa-Abban on April 14, 2025, vehemently denying involvement in any recent activities on the land.
In a strongly worded statement, he described the media coverage as “sensational and defamatory.”
“A court injunction prevents both Titanium 123 Properties and Kofi Abban Holdings from carrying out any activity on the land,” Mr. Abban noted, explaining that third-party grantees were the only ones legally permitted to operate on the site.
“It, therefore, comes as a surprise that Mr. Nii Kpakpo Abbosey accuses me of these actions. Why does he assume that his grantees may operate on the land while ours may not?”
Court’s Word: Interlocutory Injunction Clarified
The current impasse is rooted in a High Court order issued on July 2, 2024, by Justice Patricia Quansah, granting a motion for injunction filed by the 2nd Defendant, Kofi Abban Holdings, against the Plaintiff, Titanium 123 Properties Ltd.
The Judge made it clear: “The most important issue before the Court is for the ownership of the disputed plot to be determined… I do not believe it will be fair for one of the parties to continue the construction on the plot when the issue of ownership has not yet been determined.”
However, the ruling made a nuanced distinction — restraining Titanium 123 Properties from further development while preserving the rights of third-party grantees to maintain the “status quo.”
“With respect to third parties or grantees of the Plaintiff, the status quo to be maintained; as these grantees may atone tenancy to the party who is successful,” the ruling clarified.
This created a legal gray zone, allowing previously sold third-party developments to persist — a position that later sparked legal contention.
Bid to Vary the Injunction Falls Flat
In a renewed courtroom showdown on February 17, 2025, the legal team for Kofi Abban Holdings returned to court seeking to vary the injunction — this time requesting that all third-party activities on the land be suspended until ownership was finally determined.
Citing Supreme Court precedent (Ex-parte Dakpem Zobojunaa Henry Kaleem), they argued the injunction was incomplete:
“The intent of this Order was to injunct both parties and any parties claiming a right through them… including the third parties or grantees,” said Prince Eli Fornyikpor, lawyer for the 2nd Defendant, Kofi Abban Holdings.
But Justice Doreen Boakye-Agyei firmly rejected the motion, ruling that the original order was clear and unambiguous.
“This Court will have to decline the invitation to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of Applicant as that will be an appeal of the Order in effect,” the Judge ruled, describing the motion as “an attempt to have a second bite and rope in others who were not intended to be parties.”
She ordered the application dismissed with costs of GH₵1,500 awarded to the Plaintiff, Titanium 123 Ventures Limited.
Tension Escalates on the Ground
Despite these clear rulings, on-ground reports suggest that construction, destruction, and even alleged violence have resumed under the cover of third-party activity.
Both parties have filed contempt of court applications, with claims of demolished structures, physical assaults, and intimidation tactics — once again raising the spectre of lawlessness in Ghana’s land disputes.
