LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Supreme Court Will Not Interfere Unless Findings Are Perverse
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court does not disturb such concurrent findings unless they have been shown to be perverse.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in Bashaya v. State (1998) NLC-1151996(SC) at p. 28; Paras B–C.
"There are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal and this court does not, in practice, disturb such concurrent findings unless they have been shown to be perverse."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings are binding on the Supreme Court. The appellant must show perversity. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases. The principle promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence. The rule applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The court will examine whether the findings are supported by evidence. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts.
