LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Interference by Supreme Court — When Court Will Not Disturb Concurrent Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts where those findings were based on evidence properly made before those courts.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Belgore, JSC, in Ezekude v. Odogwu & Ors (2002) NLC-631998(SC) at p. 4; Paras E–A.
"It is not the duty of this court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by courts below; in so far as the findings were based on the evidence properly made before those courts."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence. The appellant must show that the findings are perverse or unsupported. 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 where the findings are manifestly unsupported or unreasonable. The rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The court will examine whether the findings are based on proper evidence. The principle applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The appellant cannot merely disagree with the findings.