LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Supreme Court Will Not Interfere Absent Perversity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The attitude of this court over time is that it will not interfere with such findings of facts except the appellants can show special circumstances—either that there was a miscarriage of justice or serious violation of some principles of law or procedure or that the findings are erroneous i.e. error in substantive or procedural law.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Biariko v. Edeh-Ogwuile & Ors (2001) NLC-741996(SC) at p. 24; Paras D–A.
"The attitude of this court over time is that it will not interfere with such findings of facts except the appellants can show special circumstances—either that there was a miscarriage of justice or serious violation of some principles of law or procedure or that the findings are erroneous i.e. error in substantive or procedural law."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless special circumstances are shown: (1) miscarriage of justice; (2) serious violation of legal or procedural principles; or (3) error in substantive or procedural law. Mere disagreement with the findings is insufficient. Concurrent findings carry great weight. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating the exceptional circumstances. The principle promotes finality and respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. Interference is reserved for manifest errors or injustice. The Court does not re-evaluate evidence simply because it might have reached a different conclusion. The special circumstances must be clearly demonstrated from the record.
