MRS. GRACE FYNN vs. STEPHEN FYNN AND CHRISTIANA OSEI [2014]DLSC2885

Date	2014-02-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/28/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2885

WOOD (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

YEBOAH JSC

BONNIE JSC

AKAMBA JSC

MUJEEB RAHMAN AHMED (WITH HIM KWABENA ATTA AGYEI NANA KWASI

BOATENG AND DR. FRANK ANKOBEA) FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

MARIAM AGYEMAN GYASI JAWHARY ESQ. (WITH HER SOLOMON OPPONG

TWUMASI) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.

[2014]DLSC2885
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MRS. GRACE FYNN<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STEPHEN FYNN AND
CHRISTIANA OSEI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/28/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 12TH
FEBUARY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MUJEEB RAHMAN AHMED (WITH
HIM KWABENA ATTA AGYEI, NANA KWASI BOATENG AND DR. FRANK ANKOBEA) FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

MARIAM
AGYEMAN GYASI JAWHARY ESQ. &nbsp;(WITH HER
SOLOMON OPPONG TWUMASI) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT/
RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>WOOD (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC,
YEBOAH JSC, BONNIE JSC, AKAMBA JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:150%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>WOOD
(MRS) C.J<o:p></o:p>This court has clearly set out the
legal principles governing appeals against the concurrent findings of fact and
conclusions of two lower courts. The principle is that ordinarily, a second appellate
court, such as this honourable court, would not interfere with the findings of
fact made by a trial court and confirmed on appeal by a first appellate court. A
second appellate court would overturn such findings and conclusions only in
exceptional cases. The circumstance under which such an intervention may be
legally permissible or justifiable is borne out in such cases as: <o:p></o:p>Achoro and Another v. Akanfela and
Another [1996-97] SCGLR 209, at 214 we reasoned that the finding would be interfered
with where; <o:p></o:p>“It was established with absolute
clearness that some blunder or error resulting in a miscarriage of justice, was
apparent in the way in which the lower tribunals had dealt with the facts. It
must be established, e.g., that the lower courts had clearly erred in the face
of a crucial documentary evidence, or that the principle of evidence had not
been properly applied; or that the finding was so based on erroneous
proposition of law that if that proposition be corrected, the finding will
disappear … It must be demonstrated that the judgments of the courts below were
clearly wrong.”<o:p></o:p>Obrasiwa 11 and others v Otu and
Another [1996-7] SCGLR 618, at 624 affirmed the above legal proposition.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In Kpakpo v Brown [2001-2002] SCGLR 876, we observed
that where the findings and conclusions are supported by the record and no
miscarriage of justice has resulted from the decisions; the second appellate
court would have no choice but to confirm those findings and conclusions.<o:p></o:p>The following cases:<o:p></o:p>Musah v Musah [2011] SCGLR 819, <o:p></o:p>Fabrina Ltd v Shell Ghana Ltd [2011]
SCGLR 429, at 449&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Fosua and Adu –Poku v Dufie (Deceased)
and Adu- Poku v Mensah [2009] SCGLR 310,<o:p></o:p>Gregory v Tandoh IV &amp; Hanson [2010]
SCGLR 971, <o:p></o:p>Obeng &amp; Others v Assemblies of God Church,
Ghana [2010] SCGLR 300 at 409 and <o:p></o:p>Mensah v Mensah [2012] 1SCGLR 300 <o:p></o:p>bring out other circumstances under
which a second appellate court’s interference would be justified. On each
occasion, this court speaking through our respected brother Dotse JSC carved
out some of the exceptions to the general rule of non interference. Our learned
brother expressed the position in Obeng v Assemblies of God Church (supra),
thus:<o:p></o:p>“…where findings of fact have been made
by a trial court and concurred in by the first appellate court, then the second
appellate court like this court, must be slow in coming to different conclusions
unless it was satisfied that there were strong&nbsp;
pieces of evidence on record which made it manifestly clear that the
findings by the trial court were perverse”, or strong pieces of evidence, where
the trial court failed to properly to evaluate the evidence or make proper use
of seeing or hearing the witnesses at the trial.<o:p></o:p>We thus applied these principles to affirm
findings and conclusions of the two lower courts in Ntiri v Essien [2001-2002] SCGLR
459; Sarkodie v F K A Co Ltd [2009] SCGLR 79; Jass Co Ltd v Appau [20009] SCGLR
266 and Awuku-Sao v Ghana Supply Co Ltd [2009] SCGLR 713. <o:p></o:p></main>