AKOSUA DUFIE VRS.pdf - Judicial Training Institute

It must be borne in mind in this appeal that the Court of Appeal unanimously
affirmed the judgment of the trial court on all facts and concurred in its
judgment. An appeal from such a judgment is governed by the principle stated in
Koglex No 2 v Field [2000] SCGLR 175 that:
“(2) Where the first appellate court had confirmed the
findings of the trial court, the second appellate court would
not interfere with the concurrent findings 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 court had dealt with the facts.”
Authorities on this principle abound in our books and Achoro v
Akanfela [1996-97] SCGLR 209, Obresiwa II v Otu [1996-97] 628 are
cited for further elucidation and support.
A second appellate court would justifiably reverse the judgment of a first
appellate court where the trial committed a fundamental error in its findings of
fact but the first appellate court did not detect the error but affirmed it and
thereby perpetuated the error. In that situation it becomes clear that a
miscarriage of justice had occurred and a second appellate court will justifiably
reverse the judgment of the first appellate court.
Thus stated, it cannot be said an appellate court cannot set aside a judgment
where two lower courts had made concurrent findings of facts.
An appeal this court is by way of a rehearing meaning this court is entitled to
review the evidence on the record to ascertain whether there is enough
satisfactory evidence in support of both the findings and conclusion which was
supported by the Court of Appeal since an appeal is by way of a rehearing of the
case: see Wangara Gyato v Gyato Wangara [1982-83] GLR 639, holding 1;
Akufo-Addo v Cathline [1992] GLR 377, holding 3; Fijal Stool v Effia Stool…
In the present appeal the appellant assayed to demonstrate why the judgment of
the Court of Appeal ought to be reversed by submitting before us that there
were inconsistencies, and contradictions in the evidence proffered by the
plaintiffs in support of their case.
The above submissions deserve some analysis. In Effisah v Ansah [2005-2006]
SCGLR 943, one of the issues in the appeal was the submission by the appellant
that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff.
This court had no difficulty in dismissing the appellant’s complaint and said, in
stating the law, in the opinion delivered by Mrs. Georgina Wood JSC (as she then
was, but now CJ) that:
“In the real world evidence led at any trial which turns
principally on issues of fact and involving fair number of
16