LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Circumstances Justifying Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
This court will undoubtedly interfere with concurrent findings of facts made by courts below which are shown to be perverse or to contain errors of law, substantive or procedural leading to a miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Ibhafidon v. Igbinosun (2001) NLC-2371990(SC) at p. 10; Paras B–C.
"This court will undoubtedly interfere with concurrent findings of facts made by courts below which are shown to be perverse or to contain errors of law, substantive or procedural leading to a miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Interference with concurrent findings is justified where the findings are perverse—no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion—or contain errors of law (substantive or procedural) that cause miscarriage of justice. Perversity includes findings running counter to evidence, ignoring obvious facts, or considering extraneous matters. Errors of law include misapplication of legal principles or procedural irregularities. The appellant must demonstrate that the error substantially affected the outcome. Mere possibility of a different conclusion is insufficient. The standard is high to preserve finality but ensures correction of manifest injustice. Interference is the Court’s duty where these circumstances exist.