MOHAMMED WOLLEY vs. SALAMI FATAL [2014]DLSC2919

Date	2014-07-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J4/41/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2919

WOOD (MRS.) CJ PRESIDING

ANSAH J.S.C

DOTSE J.S.C

BENIN J.S.C

AKAMBA J.S.C

THOMAS HUGHES ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

OSUMAN MOHADEEN ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT

[2014]DLSC2919
																																						<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" >MOHAMMED WOLLEY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SALAMI FATAL<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.J4/41/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 29TH
JULY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>THOMAS HUGHES ESQ. FOR THE
DEFENDANT/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">

OSUMAN
MOHADEEN ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<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">

WOOD (MRS.) CJ PRESIDING, ANSAH J.S.C,
DOTSE J.S.C, BENIN J.S.C, AKAMBA J.S.C<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>WOOD (MRS.) CJ:-<o:p></o:p>On
the 29th July, 2014, we decided this appeal in favour of the
Respondent. These are the reasons for our decision in respect of the appeal against
the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 22nd May, 2008. By it, the
lower appellate court affirmed in every material particular, the detailed and
well-reasoned decision of the trial court. A careful reading of the judgment
reveals that all the findings of fact received the appellate court’s full endorsement.
<o:p></o:p>The
legal position on the circumstances under which a second appellate court may
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of two lower courts, places a
herculean task on the appellant, as the grounds which may
justify an interference with such findings are rather limited. The following
cases represent only a few of the long line of cases on thiswell-established
legal principle which admits of no controversy. These are Achoro v Akanfela
[1996-97] SCGLR 209; Koglex Ltd (No. 2) v Field[2000]SCGLR 175; 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>That legal proposition is expressed
thus:<o:p></o:p>“(2) [I] In an appeal against findings
of facts to a second appellate court like… [the Supreme Court], where the lower
appellate court had concurred in the findings of the trial court, especially in
a dispute, the subject-matter of which was peculiarly within the bosom of the
two lower courts or tribunals, this court would not interfere with the
concurrent findings of the two lower courts unless 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 a principle of evidence
had not been properly applied; or, that the finding was so based on erroneous
proposition of the law that if that proposition be corrected, the finding would
disappear… It must be demonstrated that the judgments of the courts below were
clearly wrong. Thakur HariharBuksh v
Thakur UmonParshad(1886)LR 141A7; Allen
v Quebec Warehouse Co (1886)12 App Cas 101and Robins vNational Trust Co [1927]
AC 515 cited”. <o:p></o:p>This appeal is based on as many as six
separate grounds. It includes the oft used omnibus ground, which though in
broad and general terms, is nevertheless permitted under the Supreme Court
Rules C.I.16. The grounds are that the:<o:p></o:p>“ORIGINAL
GROUNDS<o:p></o:p>1. Court
misdirected itself when it agreed that the burden of proof shifted unto the
Appellant when it was the Respondent who had to prove that Defendant owed him
GH¢45,000.00.<o:p></o:p>2. …judgment is
against the Weight of Evidence.<o:p></o:p>3. …Court erred
or misdirected itself when it in effect ruled that because the Appellant did
not object to Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H at the trial court he was bound
by the contents of the Exhibits.”<o:p></o:p>“ADDITIONAL
GROUNDS <o:p></o:p>