GRACE FYNN v. STEPHEN FYNN, CHRISTIANA OSEI

JUDGMENT

WOOD (MRS) C.J

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:

Achoro and Another v. Akanfela and Another [1996-97] SCGLR 209, at 214 we reasoned that the finding would be interfered with where;

“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.”

Obrasiwa 11 and others v Otu and Another [1996-7] SCGLR 618, at 624 affirmed the above legal proposition.

In Kpakpo v Brown [2001-2002] SCGLR 876, we observed (at page) 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.

The following cases:

Musah v Musah [2011] SCGLR 819,

Fabrina Ltd v Shell Ghana Ltd [2011] SCGLR 429, at 449

Fosua and Adu –Poku v Dufie (Deceased) and Adu- Poku v Mensah [2009] SCGLR 310,

Gregory v Tandoh IV & Hanson [2010] SCGLR 971,

Obeng & Others v Assemblies of God Church, Ghana [2010] SCGLR 300 at 409 and

Mensah v Mensah [2012] 1SCGLR 300

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 thus in Obeng v Assemblies of God Church (supra):

“…where findings of fact have been made by a trial court