NII MATE TESA & ORS v. NUMO NORTEY ADJEI FIO & ORS

GBADEGBE JSC:

This is an appeal from the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that affirmed the decision of the trial High Court in the matter herein. By the said decision, the Court of Appeal had substantially accepted the case of the plaintiff/respondent/respondent (hereinafter conveniently described as the plaintiff) and rejected the defendants’ (also conveniently referred to as the defendants) claim to the disputed land. By the appeal herein, the 5th defendant seeks an order reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal whiles the 1st to 4th plaintiffs and the 6th plaintiff have appealed praying for an order reversing the order that had them struck out as plaintiffs on grounds of misjoinder.

We think that from the processes filed in the proceedings herein, the issues for our decision turn on whether the concurrent findings of fact made by the two lower courts are right and or are instances of a blunder or miscarriage of justice. Then we also have to consider the points of law relating to the question of estoppel by two previous judgments that was strenuously pressed on the court by the defendants as well as the question touching the capacity of the 5th respondent to maintain the action in view of the determination by the Court of Appeal that the other plaintiffs who were proved to have originated from the female and not the male line were not members of the family on whose behalf the plaintiffs sued in the High Court.

In our thinking the grounds that pose for our consideration the right of the rival parties to the disputed land, its extent and description being particularly in the domain of facts that were concurrently upheld by the two lower courts, this court as the final appellate court can only interfere with those findings of fact ifit is established with absolute certainty that there has been some error or blunder resulting in miscarriage of justice. Also included in this consideration is the ground of appeal formulated “The judgment is against the weight of the evidence.” See: Mondial Veneer (Gh) Ltd v Amuah Gyebu [2011] SCGLR 466, 470 per Wood CJ. We have carefully read the record of appeal and anxiously considered the written briefs submitted to us by the parties herein and have come to the conclusion that the findings of fact relating to which of the rival parties to the action herein owns the disputed land, its description and extent are amply supported by the evidence on the record without the slightest suggestion of any error or