MOHAMMED WOLLEY v. SALAMI FATAL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WOOD (MRS.) CJ:-

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.

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.

That legal proposition is expressed thus:

“(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”.

This appeal is based on as many as six separate grounds. It includes the oft used omnibus ground, which though in