LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Supreme Court Will Not Interfere Absent Perversity or Miscarriage of Justice
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Nothing has been established to show that the concurrent findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, arrived at by a wrong approach to evidence, or by wrong application of law or procedure, or that they are patently erroneous causing miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, this court cannot interfere.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Mainagge v. Gwamma (2004) NLC-191998(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–C.
"Nothing has been established by the appellant to show that the said findings are perverse or unsupported by the evidence or that they were arrived at as a result of a wrong approach to the evidence. It is also not shown that the findings were reached at as a result of a wrong application of any principle of substantive law or procedure or that they are patently erroneous and that a miscarriage of justice will result if they are allowed to remain. In these circumstances, this court cannot interfere with them."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court. Interference requires showing perversity, wrong approach to evidence, wrong application of law, or miscarriage of justice. The principle applies to appellate practice. The appellant bears the heavy burden of establishing such exceptional circumstances. Without them, the Supreme Court will not intervene.
