LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Effect of Intermediate Court Reversal on Concurrent Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The mere fact that the Customary Court of Appeal came in between the Customary Court and the Court of Appeal did not destroy the concurrent findings of the two courts. Where the concurrent findings are not perverse, the respondents are entitled to urge this court to dismiss the appeal.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Onyenge & Ors v. Ebere & Ors (2004) NLC-1172000(SC) at p. 18; Paras E–A.
"The mere fact that the Customary Court of Appeal came in between the Customary Court and the Court of Appeal did not destroy the concurrent findings of the two courts. In view of the fact that the concurrent findings of the customary court and the Court of Appeal are not perverse, the respondents are entitled to urge this court to dismiss the appeal."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings between Customary Court and Court of Appeal are binding. The principle applies to appellate practice. The intermediate Customary Court of Appeal’s presence does not destroy concurrence. The rule respects findings not perverse. The appellant must show perversity. The principle is well-established.
