APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Supreme Court Interference — When Justified
Ratio Decidendi
Per Oguntade, JSC (adopting Obaseki, JSC in Kale v. Coker), in Jinadu & Ors v. Esurombi-Aro & Ors (2009) NLC-123-54-2005(SC) at pp. 22; Paras D-E:
"This Court will not in the absence of special circumstances indicating obvious errors in the concurrent finding of fact by two lower courts allow the question of fact to be re-opened... The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that it will interfere only where not to do so will occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes the Supreme Court’s limited interference with concurrent findings of fact. The court will only interfere where there are special circumstances indicating obvious errors, or where failure to interfere will occasion substantial miscarriage of justice. The principle applies where two lower courts have agreed on factual findings. It reflects the Supreme Court’s deferential approach. The appellant must demonstrate an exception. The principle promotes finality and respect for trial courts. It prevents re-opening factual questions without compelling reasons. The court must balance finality against