LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Interference by Supreme Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Even if the appellant had sought for leave of this court to raise the issues she purportedly raised in the abortive grounds of appeal, I would have refused her leave to do so having regard to the facts of the case and the concurrent judgments of the Customary Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal on the issues raised and considered by them. These are concurrent findings of fact.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in Salami v. Mohammed & Anor (2000) NLC-2191994(SC) at p. 7; Paras C–D.
"Even if the appellant had sought for leave of this court to raise the issues she purportedly raised in the abortive grounds of appeal, I would have refused her leave to do so having regard to the facts of the case and the concurrent judgments of the Customary Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal on the issues raised and considered by them. These are concurrent findings of fact."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court unless special circumstances exist, such as perversity or miscarriage of justice. Even where leave to raise new issues might otherwise be granted, concurrent findings may justify refusal. This policy promotes finality and recognizes the superior position of lower courts in fact-finding. The Supreme Court will not disturb such findings lightly, as doing so would undermine the judicial hierarchy and encourage endless litigation over factual disputes already resolved by two courts.