APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Circumstances for Interference
Principle Statement
The law on concurrent finding of facts is very settled. It is that this Court does not make a practice of interfering with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts except where there are special circumstances to warrant same, such as where the findings are perverse or not supported by the evidence or there is a wrongful application of substantive or procedural law etc, etc.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Okoye v. Obiaso (2010) NLC-123-232-2003(SC) at p. 10; Paras B–C.
"The law on concurrent finding of facts is very settled. It is that this Court does not make a practice of interfering with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts except where there are special circumstances to warrant same, such as where the findings are perverse or not supported by the evidence or there is a wrongful application of substantive or procedural law etc, etc."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless special circumstances exist, such as perversity, lack of evidentiary support, or wrongful application of law. The principle applies where both lower courts agree on factual findings. It promotes finality and respect for trial courts. The principle reflects the limited scope of appellate review. It prevents unnecessary interference. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on when interference is justified.
