APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Interference by Supreme Court
Ratio Decidendi
Per Musdapher, JSC, in Yesufu v. Adama (2010) NLC-123-186-2003(SC) at pp. 17; Paras A–C:
"The court of appeal confirmed the finding that there was a valid partition. Thus, it is a concurrent finding of facts and this court will not ordinarily interfere with such findings unless it is shown to be perverse and the appellant has not convinced me that the findings were perverse."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes the Supreme Court’s deferential approach to concurrent findings of fact. Where two lower courts agree on a factual finding, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless the finding is perverse. The appellant must convince the court that the findings are perverse. The principle applies in all appeals with concurrent findings. It promotes finality and respect for trial courts. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating perversity. The principle reflects the Supreme Court’s role as a final appellate court. It prevents re-litigation of factual issues. The court must be satisfied that the findings are unreasonable.