Ratio Decidendi

Per Mohammed, JSC, in Olaiya v. State (2010) NLC-123-36-2009(SC) at p. 10, para. E:

"This appeal being one against concurrent findings of facts of two courts below, the appellant is very far from discharging the burden the law places on him of showing that the decision of the courts below were perverse or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution."
View Judgment →

Explanation / Scope

This principle establishes that in an appeal against concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts, the appellant bears a heavy burden to show that the findings are perverse or cannot be supported by the evidence adduced. The principle applies where concurrent findings are challenged. It ensures that the appellant must demonstrate a clear basis for interference. The principle reflects the limited scope of appellate review. It promotes finality and respect for trial courts. The court must be satisfied that the findings are unsupported or perverse. The principle provides guidance on the burden on an appellant challenging concurrent findings.

Cases Applying This Principle

Rasheed Olaiya v. The State