LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Interference by Supreme Court — When Justified
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence unless there is a violation of principles of law or procedure, a miscarriage of justice, or a substantial error on the face of the record.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Akalonu v. State (2002) NLC-1622000(SC) at pp. 8–9; Paras E–A.
"This court has repeatedly laid it down that it will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal which are supported by evidence except there is established a violation of some principles of law or procedure, a miscarriage of justice or a substantial error apparent on the face of the record of proceedings."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court unless the appellant demonstrates: (1) violation of principles of law or procedure; (2) miscarriage of justice; or (3) substantial error on the face of the record. The appellant bears a heavy burden. 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. The findings must be perverse or unsupported to warrant interference.