AKOSUA DUFIE VRS.pdf - Judicial Training Institute

From the above authorities, the principle might be stated that an appellate court
such as this court may interfere with the findings of fact of a trial court where
the latter failed properly to evaluate the evidence or make the proper use of the
opportunity of seeing or hearing the witnesses at the trial or where it has drawn
wrong conclusions from the accepted evidence or where its findings are shown
to be perverse.
In the instant case, it must be noted that one of the principal characters,
Opanyin Kwaku Poku had died. The law is settled that whenever issues touching
the estate of a person who is deceased comes into play, the courts must be very
slow in construing evidence against the dead person.
See cases of In re Krah (Decd) Yankyeraah & Ors v Osei-Tutu & Anor
[1989-90]1GLR 638 @ 662, Bisi v Tabiri [1987-88] 1 GLR, 360 @ 409,
where the principle was stated that;
“The well-known rule is that claims against a deceased’s estate
must be scrutinized with circumspection”
Secondly, if the trial court and the Court of Appeal had adverted their minds to
the fact that the Plaintiffs by their common desire to claim the property as family
property needed to produce very cogent, reliable, credible and convincing
evidence that the properties in dispute did not belong to the deceased, they
would have been more cautious in their evaluation of the case. This is especially
crucial and important in view of the overwhelming documentary evidence
proffered by the Defendants to support their contention that the properties were
self-acquired by the deceased, Kwaku Poku.
This has been further buttressed by the many overt acts of possession and
ownership exhibited by the deceased in his lifetime without challenge by the
Plaintiffs and their collaborators.
What must be equally noted is that the evidence of PW1 AFUA MUNU, the
divorced wife of the deceased should have been evaluated and assessed with
circumspection.
36