LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limited Scope for Supreme Court Interference with Concurrent Findings

This principle establishes the Supreme Court’s restrained approach to reviewing factual findings made by both the trial court and Court of Appeal. When two lower courts have examined evidence, heard witnesses, and reached the same factual conclusions, these concurrent findings carry significant weight and enjoy a strong presumption of correctness. The Supreme Court will only interfere in two exceptional circumstances: (1) where a substantial error is apparent on the face of the record—meaning an obvious mistake in evaluating evidence, misunderstanding of testimony, or failure to consider material evidence that is evident from reading the record itself; or (2) where the findings are perverse—meaning they are so unreasonable that no tribunal properly directing itself on the evidence could have reached such conclusions. The principle reflects several important considerations: lower courts have the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses and assessing credibility; appellate review should focus on legal errors rather than re-trying facts; finality in litigation requires respect for factual determinations; and the Supreme Court’s primary role is to ensure correct application of law and maintain consistency in legal principles. “Substantial error” means more than mere disagreement with the findings—it requires demonstrable miscarriage of justice. The burden on appellants seeking to overturn concurrent findings is heavy, requiring clear demonstration that the findings are unsupported by evidence or contrary to the weight of evidence.