LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – When Supreme Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings supported by evidence unless they are perverse, patently erroneous, or would result in a miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Dogo & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-442000(SC) at pp. 18–19; Paras D–A.
"The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal where they are fully supported by the evidence and there is no substantial error apparent on the record of proceedings such as a violation of some principle of law and procedure which renders them perverse or unsupportable. Where, however, such findings are shown to be perverse or patently erroneous or it is shown that a miscarriage of justice will result if they are allowed to remain, this court is duty bound to interfere with them."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, patently erroneous, or would cause a miscarriage of justice. Concurrent findings supported by evidence are binding. The appellant must show substantial error, violation of legal principle, or perversity. Mere disagreement is insufficient. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases where the findings are manifestly unsupported by evidence. The court will not re-evaluate evidence to substitute its own view. The burden on the appellant is heavy. The principle promotes finality and judicial efficiency.
