LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — When Supreme Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is well settled law that the Supreme Court will not usually or generally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the Court of Appeal and the trial court unless such findings are found to be perverse.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Eyisi & Ors v. State (2000) NLC-1601999(SC) at p. 20; Paras D–E.
"It is well settled law that the Supreme Court will not usually or generally interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact of the Court of Appeal and the trial court unless such findings are found to be perverse."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts unless the findings are perverse. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion on the evidence. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating perversity. Concurrent findings carry great weight because two courts independently reached the same conclusion. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence to substitute its own view. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases where the findings are manifestly unsupported or unreasonable. The rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The appellant must show clear error, not mere disagreement.
