LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Supreme Court Practice — Disturbance of Concurrent Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal unless they are perverse or there is a substantial error in substantive or procedural law that would lead to a miscarriage of justice if uncorrected.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Akpan v. State (2002) NLC-2092000(SC) at p. 12; Paras D–E.
"It is the policy of the Supreme Court not to disturb concurrent findings of the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal unless it is shown that either they were perverse or that there was a substantial error either in substantive or procedural law which if uncorrected will lead to a miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court’s policy is to respect concurrent findings of fact. Interference requires perversity or substantial error causing miscarriage of justice. The appellant bears a heavy burden. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion. Substantial error includes violation of law or procedure. The principle promotes finality and judicial efficiency. 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.