AGYA BOAKYE ATONSAH PREMPEH v. ERIC OFEI-KWAPONG

PWAMANG, JSC:-

My Lords, in this appeal the parties are disputing over the ownership of a piece of land at East Legon, Accra, with each party claiming through disputing original owner families both of which hail from Teshie. The plaintiff claims the land through Ashong Militse Family of Odaiteitsewe whereas the defendant derives his title from the Osae Family of Otinshie. The plaintiff in addition makes a case based on possession. The trial High Court held that on the evidence, the land in dispute falls within the land of Osae Family and therefore decided in favour of the defendant. The Court of Appeal upon review of the evidence affirmed the judgment of the High Court. We are therefore here dealing with a case of concurrent findings which on the authorities we have to be slow in reversing. See Achoro v Akanfela [1996-97] SCGLR 209, ASIBEY V GBOMITTAH & COMMANDER OSEI [2012] 2 SCGLR 800 and ACQUIE V. TIJANI [2012] SCGLR 1252. However, the case being pressed on us by the plaintiff in this second and final appeal is that the view of the evidence taken by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal is not supported by the record. He prays us to set aside the concurrent findings and has referred to us the case of Koglex Ltd v Field (No.2) [2000] SCGLR 175.

My Lord, in the case of Gregory v Tandoh [2010] SCGLR 971, the Supreme Court speaking through Dotse, JSC laid down the grounds on which the court would depart from concurrent findings in the following passage at page 986 of Report;

“…….a second appellate court, like this Supreme Court can and is entitled to depart from findings of fact made by the trial court and concurred in by the first appellate court under the following circumstances:

1. Where from the record the findings of fact by the trial court are clearly not supported by evidence on record and the reasons in support of the findings are unsatisfactory.

2. Where the findings of fact by the trial court can be seen from the record to be either perverse or inconsistent with the totality of evidence led by the witnesses and the surrounding circumstances of the entire evidence on record.

3. Where the findings of fact made by the trial court are consistently inconsistent with important documentary evidence on record.

4. Where the first appellate court had wrongly applied the principle of law in Achoro vrs Akanfela (already referred to supra) and other cases on the principle, the second appellate court must feel free to interfere