LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Interference by Supreme Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there have been concurrent findings of the two lower courts, this court makes it a policy not to disturb them unless special circumstances include exist to warrant interference. Such special circumstances include perverse findings, error in procedural or substantive law occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC in Okulate & Ors v. Awosanya & Ors (2000) NLC-1981992(SC) at p. 11; Paras. A–C.
"Where there have been concurrent findings of the two lower courts, this court makes it a policy not to disturb them unless special circumstances include exist to warrant interference. Such special circumstances include perverse findings, error in procedural or substantive law occasioning a miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court respects concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and Court of Appeal, treating them as binding unless exceptional circumstances exist. Such circumstances include: findings that are perverse (unsupported by evidence or contradictory); errors in procedural or substantive law that caused a miscarriage of justice; or where the lower courts failed to properly evaluate evidence. This policy promotes finality and acknowledges that fact-finding is primarily for lower courts. Interference is corrective, not routine, preserving the integrity of the judicial hierarchy.