LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Supreme Court May Interfere Where Finding Is Perverse
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a concurrent finding of fact does not flow logically from other findings made by the trial judge, it is perverse, and the Supreme Court will set it aside.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Agbomeji v. Bakare (1998) NLC-3121991(SC) at p. 27; Paras D–E.
"As the concurrent finding of fact under consideration appears not to flow logically from the other findings made by the trial Judge, I must hold that finding is perverse and I must consequently set it aside."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings if they are perverse. Perversity exists when the finding does not logically follow from the evidence or other findings. The principle is an exception to the general rule of non-interference. The appellant must demonstrate perversity. The court will examine the logical consistency of the findings. The rule applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The court will set aside perverse findings. The principle ensures that decisions are based on logical reasoning. The court will not allow manifestly erroneous findings to stand.