LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Interference by Supreme Court — Circumstances for Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not normally interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principles of law or procedure.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Princent & Anor v. State (2002) NLC-1582001(SC) at p. 20; Paras D–E.
"It is settled law that this court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below unless there is some miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principles of law or procedure."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court unless the appellant demonstrates a miscarriage of justice or violation of law or procedure. The appellant bears a heavy burden. Perversity is a ground for interference. 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 court will examine whether the findings are supported by evidence.