LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings – Interference by Supreme Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
This court will not lightly interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the Court of Appeal, unless such findings are perverse and utterly unreasonable.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Afegbai v. A.G., Edo State & Anor (2001) NLC-1111996(SC) at p. 7; Paras A–B.
"This court will not lightly interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the Court of Appeal, unless such findings are perverse and utterly unreasonable."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not lightly interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and Court of Appeal. Interference requires that the findings be perverse and utterly unreasonable—not merely erroneous or disagreeable. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion on the evidence. The appellant bears a heavy burden. Concurrent findings carry great weight because two courts independently reached the same factual conclusion. This principle promotes finality and respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases where the findings are manifestly unsupported by evidence or constitute a miscarriage of justice.