LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limited Grounds for Supreme Court Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, reached by a wrong approach to evidence, or based on a wrong application of substantive law or procedure.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Agbabiaka v. Saibu & Ors (1998) NLC-1711995(SC) at pp. 18; Paras A--C.
"It is trite law that unless such findings are found to be perverse or are not supported by the evidence or were reached as a result of a wrong approach to the evidence or a wrong application of a principle of substantive law or procedure, this court, even if disposed to come to a different conclusion upon the printed evidence, cannot do so."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court respects concurrent findings of fact by lower courts. Interference requires demonstration of perversity, lack of evidence support, wrong approach to evidence, or misapplication of law. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The principle promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The court will not re-evaluate evidence to substitute its own view. The rule applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The appellant must show clear error, not mere disagreement.
