LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent findings of fact – Attitude of the Supreme Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When the High Court and the Court of Appeal have made concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court will not disturb them unless they are not in accord with the evidence, were not lawfully received, are perverse, or the error occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Elendu v. Ekwoaba (1998) NLC-621995(SC) at pp. 26–27; Paras B–D.
"It has, time and again, been emphasised as being well settled that, when the High Court and the Court of Appeal have examined issues of fact and made concurrent findings thereon, the Supreme Court would not disturb the findings of facts of the lower courts unless such findings are not in accord with the evidence before the trial court or if in evidence they were not lawfully received or are perverse or the error on the face of the record occasioned a miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings are binding on the Supreme Court. Interference requires specific exceptions: lack of evidence, illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The principle applies to all appeals. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The rule promotes finality and efficiency. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence. The principle respects lower courts.