LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Attitude of the Supreme Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there are two concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, and the trial court did not fix boundaries arbitrarily, the Supreme Court will be reluctant or cautious to interfere.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Osho v. Ape (1998) NLC-2021993(SC) at p. 23; Paras B–C.
"It being undisputed that the court below made a correct appraisal of the findings of fact relating to boundaries and that the trial court did not of its own fix the boundaries arbitrarily, there has been two concurrent findings of fact with which this court will be reluctant or cautious to interfere therewith."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings on boundaries are binding. The Supreme Court will not interfere unless arbitrary. The principle applies to land disputes. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The rule promotes finality. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence. The principle is well-established.