LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Interference by Supreme Court — When Justified
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will be loath to interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they result in miscarriage of justice, violate principles of law, or are perverse.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Olokotintin v. Sarumi & Ors (2002) NLC-441998(SC) at p. 6; Paras D–E.
"These are concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below which this court sitting over the appeal will be loath to interfere with unless shown to have been arrived at resulting in miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principles of law or indeed, the same is shown to be perverse."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court respects concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts. Interference requires demonstration of miscarriage of justice, violation of law, or perversity. The appellant bears the heavy burden of proof. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion. The principle promotes finality and 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. The rule applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The appellant must show clear error, not mere disagreement. The court will examine whether the findings are supported by evidence.
