LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Supreme Court’s Approach to Concurrent Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Ordinarily this court ought not lightly depart from concurrent findings of facts of the two lower courts because it has no opportunity of seeing and listening to the witnesses testify. But where it is manifest that those concurrent findings were based on a wrong perspective of the case, this court has not only the right but the duty to interfere on the issues of fact.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Ibhafidon v. Igbinosun (2001) NLC-2371990(SC) at p. 7; Paras C–D.
"Ordinarily this court ought not lightly depart from concurrent findings of facts of the two lower courts because it has no opportunity of seeing and listening to the witnesses testify. But where it is manifest that those concurrent findings were based on a wrong perspective of the case, this court has not only the right but the duty to interfere on the issues of fact."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court ordinarily respects concurrent findings because it lacks the trial court’s advantage of seeing witnesses. However, where concurrent findings are based on a wrong perspective of the case—e.g., misreading evidence, ignoring material facts, or applying wrong legal principles—the Court has both the right and duty to interfere. The exception preserves the Supreme Court’s supervisory role. Wrong perspective includes drawing inferences not supported by evidence, taking into account irrelevant matters, or failing to consider relevant ones. The appellant must demonstrate manifest error, not mere disagreement. Interference corrects substantial injustice.