LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – When Supreme Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
With such concurrent findings of fact, fully supported by evidence, oral and documentary, this court cannot interfere with the judgment of the lower court unless special circumstances were shown upon conditions well-known.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Jekpe & Anor v. Alokwe & Ors (2002) NLC-1111995(SC) at p. 19; Paras A–B.
"With such concurrent findings of fact, fully supported by evidence, oral and documentary, this court cannot interfere with the judgment of the lower court unless special circumstances were shown upon conditions well-known."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence unless special circumstances are shown. Concurrent findings—by trial court and Court of Appeal—carry great weight. The appellant must demonstrate perversity, miscarriage of justice, or violation of legal principles. Mere disagreement is insufficient. Special circumstances include findings running counter to evidence, ignoring material facts, considering extraneous matters, or drawing wrong inferences. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts and promotes finality. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The Supreme Court is not a third fact-finding instance. Interference is exceptional, not routine.
