The land value capture (LVC) concept has recently gained stance in the global discussion among the academia and policy makers. The Vancouver Declaration in 1976 sparked its discussion and consideration as revenue generation source for governments worldwide. The concept seeks to give public authority justification to recover part or whole of land values increment attributable to its action or the general public. Several LVC instruments exist but property tax and land leasing have been considered in this study. The choice was inspired by the current land based instruments in Ghana used to generate revenue. Property tax in Ghana is based on improvements only and depreciated replacement cost which in principle alone does not capture land values. This shortfall necessitated the combination of land leasing (ground rent) with property tax to achieve that purpose. This research was carried out in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis with the main objective to explain how property tax complements land leasing in capturing land values to finance urban infrastructure/services. In order to achieve this objective, a primary research question “To what extent does property tax and land leasing capture land values to finance urban infrastructure/services?” was posed. In an attempt to answer the research question, state-of-the-art literature on land value capture, property tax, land leasing and urban infrastructure/services concepts were reviewed. Based on the conceptual framework espoused in chapter two, a research methodology was designed and adopted. The research was more of descriptive type but with explanatory and exploratory components. The approach to the research was a mixture of quantitative and qualitative approach with data collection method being both primary and secondary. The research strategy was a case study with singled embedded based on best case scenario. The sampling techniques adopted in this research comprised simple random sampling, stratified sampling and purposive sampling techniques. The data collection instruments comprised questionnaires, interview schedules, observation list and templates. It was unravelled from the field that there were several laws regulating land leasing in Ghana. Four (4) land tenure systems including state, vested, stool and family lands were identified in Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis to be managed in accordance with the laws and customary practices of the locality. In Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis, it was revealed that stool lands covered 55.22%, state lands occupied 20.35%, family lands accounted for 24.10% while vested lands occupied 0.33% of its land size. It was shown that the central government and Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly (STMA) did not benefit from ground rent revenue under family lands. However, Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly enjoyed 49.5% of stool lands ground rent and 100% of all property rate revenue. Property rate was regulated by few laws linked to the land leasing laws. It was found to be assessed based on improvements only with the depreciated replacement cost approach. A maximum depreciation of 25% was found to be applied based on physical state of the premises but not on age. The research revealed that property rate was one of the main sources (19.79% - 38.83%) of internally generated funds (IGF) revenue for the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly. Property rate revenue was found to be increasing at a decreased rate over the years (2006 – 2013) with the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly’s internally generated fund while ground rent was steadily increasing over the last 3 years after a sharp fall in 2009. Stool lands ground rent revenue could not meet urban infrastructure/services expenditure nonetheless property rate revenue covered over and above the infrastructure expenditure. It was realized that if revenue from state and vested lands ground rent were added to the stool lands revenue, it could finance far more infrastructure expenditure than the property rate. In terms of land value capture, ground rent coul capture a little (0.41% - 22.04% per m2) of the land values but the value captured was largely kept by land owners especially the stool and family. The central government and the local government (STMA) benefited a little of the value captured. Out of this value captured, more (highest 22.04% per m2 but a total of 47.54% per m2 ) was being captured under state and vested lands than under stool lands (highest 11.76% per m2 but a total of 19.71% per m2). Cumulatively, property rate complemented ground rent to generate more revenue for the STMA. It was concluded that property tax did not capture land values but complemented ground rent to capture the land values. The value captured was not much but could finance urban infrastructure over and above the expended which implied surplus revenue was available to cater for other expenditure.