APPELLATE PRACTICE ā Concurrent Findings ā Interference by Supreme Court ā Conditions for
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Capital Bancorp Limited v. Shelter Savings and Loans Limited & Anor (2007) NLC-123-27-2000(SC) at p. 20; Paras CāE. View Source:
"It is settled law that the Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of the two lower Courts unless special circumstances exist to warrant interference and that the special circumstances that may weigh on the Court to so interfere include: a. where the finding is perverse; b. where there is/are error(s) in procedure or substantive law occasioning a miscarriage of justice."
Explanation / Scope
This principle is a cornerstone of appellate practice. Concurrent findings by two lower courts are presumed correct and are entitled to great weight. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence simply because it might have reached a different conclusion. The exceptions are narrow: perversity means the finding is unsupported by evidence or based on a wrong view of the law; procedural or substantive error must be substantial and must have led to a miscarriage of justice. The burden lies heavily on the appellant to establish these grounds. The rule ensures finality and prevents endless litigation.