LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — When Supreme Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a trial court unquestionably evaluates evidence and appraises facts, an appellate court should not substitute its own views. The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings unless circumstances warranting interference are shown.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Awaogbo v. Eze (1995) NLC-691991(SC) at p. 11; Paras. A–C.
"It is settled that where a court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, it is not the business of a Court of Appeal to substitute its own views for the trial court. A Court of Appeal should not easily disturb the findings of fact of a trial Judge who had the singular opportunity of listening to the witnesses and watching their performance. The circumstances under which this court can interfere with those findings of fact or inferences drawn from them have not been shown to exist."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence. The appellant must show perversity or miscarriage of justice. The principle respects the trial court’s advantage. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases. The rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The court will examine whether the findings are supported by evidence.