LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Supreme Court Policy – Non-Interference with Concurrent Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
As the decisions of the two courts below constitute concurrent conclusions of fact, this court has made it a policy not to interfere therewith.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Ojo v. Azama (2001) NLC-1221995(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–B.
"As the decisions of the two courts below constitute concurrent conclusions of fact, this court has made it a policy not to interfere therewith."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court has a policy of not interfering with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal. Such findings are presumed correct. The appellant must demonstrate that the findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or based on a wrong application of law or procedure. Mere disagreement is insufficient. The policy promotes finality and respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. The Supreme Court does not have the advantage of seeing witnesses. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The policy is not absolute but is strongly adhered to. The court will intervene only where there is manifest error or miscarriage of justice.
