LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Supreme Court Will Interfere Where Findings Are Perverse and Unsupported by Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
I am not unaware of the well-settled principle of law that this court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of two lower courts except where special circumstances are shown. In this case, it is my view that the said findings are perverse having not been supported by evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kalgo, JSC, in Jolayemi & Ors v. Alaoye & Anor (2004) NLC-1062000(SC) at p. 17; Paras A–B.
"I am not unaware of the well-settled principle of law that this court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of two lower courts as in this case except where special circumstances are shown. In this case, it is my view that the said findings are perverse having not been supported by evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact except where special circumstances are shown. Perverse findings unsupported by evidence constitute special circumstances. The principle applies to appellate practice. The rule allows interference where findings lack evidentiary support. The court must identify specific perversity to justify interference. Perverse findings cannot stand even if affirmed by two lower courts.