LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Supreme Court Will Not Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless exceptional circumstances are shown; it is not exceptional that another court might have reached a different conclusion.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Agu v. Nnadi (2002) NLC-1541998(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–B.
"The principle is now well established, elementary and long standing and does not need citation of authorities, that this court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there are shown exceptional circumstances. It is not an exceptional circumstance to show that another court may have come to a different conclusion on the same set of evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact without exceptional circumstances. Mere possibility of a different conclusion is not exceptional. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence to substitute its own view. Interference is reserved for cases of perversity, miscarriage of justice, or violation of law. The rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The appellant must show clear error. The principle is well-established and elementary. The court will not entertain appeals that merely seek re-evaluation of facts.