LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Interference by Supreme Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where concurrent findings are not shown to be perverse and have not led to a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court will not interfere with them.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Onwuama v. Ezeokoli (2002) NLC-1721996(SC) at p. 7; Paras D–E.
"In the circumstances, since the findings were not shown to be perverse and cannot be said to have led in any way to a miscarriage of justice, this court is not entitled to, and will not interfere with such concurrent findings of fact."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or cause a miscarriage of justice. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating perversity or miscarriage. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion. 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 rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The appellant must show clear error, not mere disagreement. The court will examine whether the findings are supported by evidence. The principle applies to both civil and criminal appeals.