LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – When Appellate Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Concurrent findings supported by sufficient evidence should not be disturbed; interference is warranted only where findings are patently erroneous and allowing them to remain would be a travesty of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Adeye & Ors v. Adesanya & Ors (2001) NLC-1181995(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras D–A.
"It is settled law that such concurrent findings, where there is sufficient evidence to support them should not be disturbed. For this court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact the circumstances must be such that the findings of fact are patently erroneous and it would be travesty of justice to allow the findings to remain."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court if supported by sufficient evidence. Interference requires that the findings be patently erroneous and that allowing them to remain would be a travesty of justice. The appellant must demonstrate manifest error, not mere disagreement. 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 exceptional cases where the findings are clearly unsupported or unreasonable. The burden on the appellant is heavy. The principle promotes finality and judicial efficiency.
