LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Interference by Supreme Court — Conditions for Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where concurrent findings of the two courts are unimpeachable and no special circumstances have been shown that the findings are impeachable, the Supreme Court will not interfere with them.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Jonason Triangles Ltd. v. Charles Moh & Partners Ltd. (2002) NLC-1561999(SC) at pp. 11–12; Paras D–A.
"It is settled principle that where the concurrent findings of the two courts are unimpeachable, and no special circumstances have been shown to the effect that the findings are impeachable, this court would not interfere with them."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings that are unimpeachable. The appellant must show special circumstances that make the findings impeachable. Unimpeachable findings are those supported by evidence and not perverse. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence to substitute its own view. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The court will examine whether the findings are based on proper evidence. The appellant cannot merely disagree with the findings.