LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Duty of Supreme Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Learned counsel to the appellants has not shown that these findings of facts are perverse or unreasonable, or that they are not consistent with the justice of the case. This court is bound to accept these findings of fact.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Wilson v. Oshin (2000) NLC-2291994(SC) at p. 18; Paras D–E.
"Learned counsel to the appellants has not shown that these findings of facts are perverse or unreasonable, or that they are not consistent with the justice of the case. This court is bound to accept these findings of fact."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court is bound by concurrent findings of fact unless shown to be perverse, unreasonable, or inconsistent with justice. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating such exceptional circumstances. Mere disagreement is insufficient. Concurrent findings carry great weight because two lower courts independently reached the same conclusion. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence to substitute its own view. The principle promotes finality and respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. Interference requires manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or violation of legal principles. Without such showing, the findings are binding.