APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Interference by Supreme Court — When Justified
Ratio Decidendi
Per Musdapher, JSC, in Gbadamosi v. Dairo & Anor (2007) NLC-123-167-2001(SC) at p. 12; Paras A–C:
"It is a policy of the Supreme Court for a long time not to disturb concurrent findings of two lower courts unless special circumstances exist to warrant interference. Such special circumstances included: (a) perverse findings; (b) error in procedural or substantive law occasioning a miscarriage of justice."
Explanation / Scope
Concurrent findings refer to situations where both lower courts have agreed on a particular fact. This creates a strong presumption of correctness, which the Supreme Court respects to avoid re-litigating facts and to ensure finality. The exceptions are narrow: a finding is perverse if it is unsupported by evidence, or if the court ignored admissible evidence or relied on irrelevant material. An error of law must be substantial and must have affected the outcome. The burden is on the appellant to clearly establish these exceptional grounds.