LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Interference by Supreme Court — When Permissible
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellant who seeks the Supreme Court's intervention in concurrent findings of fact must be prepared to demonstrate perverse findings or wrong conclusions from accepted credible evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Owoyemi v. Adekoya & Ors (2003) NLC-1041998(SC) at p. 15; Paras A–B.
"An appellant who seeks the Supreme Court's intervention in concurrent findings of fact must have at the back of his mind that the court will generally be unwilling to do so. Therefore such appellant must be prepared to demonstrate the element of perverse findings or wrong conclusions from accepted credible evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings are binding. The appellant must show perversity or miscarriage. The principle applies to all appeals. The burden is heavy. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence. The rule promotes finality. The principle is well-established.