LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – When Supreme Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The concurrent findings of the courts below on facts and law cannot be assailed in the absence of any wrong assessment of evidence, miscarriage of justice or anything perverse; where nothing perverse, illegal or irregular is found in the findings by trial court as upheld by Court of Appeal, there is no reason to interfere with those findings.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The concurrent findings of the courts below on facts as well as on law cannot be assailed in the absence of any wrong assessment of evidence, or miscarriage of justice or anything perverse. In the present instance I can find nothing perverse or illegal or irregular in the findings of facts by trial court as upheld by Court of Appeal. I have therefore no reason to interfere with those findings."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings (agreement between trial and appellate courts) receive maximum deference from the Supreme Court. Interference requires: (1) Wrong assessment of evidence—misapplying evidentiary standards, ignoring material evidence, or considering inadmissible evidence; (2) Miscarriage of justice—the result is fundamentally unjust; (3) Perversity—findings no reasonable tribunal could reach; (4) Illegality—legal error in the findings; (5) Irregularity—procedural violations affecting the findings. Absent these exceptional circumstances, concurrent findings stand. This triple-lock (trial-appeal-supreme courts) creates strong finality presumption. The principle promotes: efficient use of Supreme Court resources, finality in litigation, and respect for lower courts’ fact-finding roles. Supreme Court review focuses on legal principles rather than fact re-examination.