LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings – Attitude of Supreme Court to Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The attitude of this court to concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below has always been that this court will not disturb such findings unless they are shown to be perverse, or there is a substantial error apparent on the record of proceedings, or there is some miscarriage of justice; where there is sufficient evidence supporting such concurrent findings, this court will not interfere with them; the onus is on the appellant to establish that injustice has been done by such findings if they expect this court to interfere.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The attitude of this court to concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below has always been that this court will not disturb such findings unless they are shown to be perverse - Sobakin v. The State (1981) 5 SC. 75 or there is a substantial error apparent on the record of proceedings. -Ibodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 Sc. 42 or there is some miscarriage of justice -Enang v. Adu (1981) 11-12 Sc. 25. Where there is sufficient evidence supporting such concurrent findings, this court will not interfere with them - Njoku v. Eme (1973) 5 SC 293. The onus is on the appellant to establish that injustice has been done to him by such findings if he expects this court to interfere with those findings."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This comprehensively restates the concurrent findings doctrine (Principles 216, 248, 283, 380, 402, 441). Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings unless: (1) Perverse: no reasonable tribunal could reach such findings on the evidence—fundamentally unreasonable. (2) Substantial error on record: significant mistakes apparent from proceedings—not minor errors but substantial defects. (3) Miscarriage of justice: findings produce unjust outcome—allowing them to stand would work injustice. When sufficient evidence supports findings: Supreme Court won’t interfere—deference applies when evidentiary foundation exists. Burden on appellant: Must affirmatively establish injustice—not merely disagreement but actual injustice from the findings. This places heavy burden on appellants challenging concurrent findings—presumption strongly favors their correctness. The multiple authority citations demonstrate this principle’s consistent application over decades. “Attitude” indicates established approach, not discretionary position—this is settled practice. The principle serves: finality (double agreement creates strong presumption), efficiency (preventing endless fact re-litigation), and respect for fact-finding courts. This is among Nigerian jurisprudence’s most firmly established principles.