LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings of Fact — When Supreme Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts unless those findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, reached by wrong approach to evidence, or result in miscarriage of justice or violation of law.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Adeleke v. Asani & Anor (2002) NLC-931997(SC) at p. 13; Paras A–B.
"The law is that where there are concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts, the Supreme Court will not interfere with them unless those findings are: — (1) found to be perverse, or (2) not supported by evidence, (3) reached as a result of a wrong approach to evidence (4) a result of a miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principles of substantive or procedural law."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court unless they fall within established exceptions. Exceptions include perversity, lack of evidence support, wrong approach to evidence, miscarriage of justice, or violation of law. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating such defects. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion. 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. The rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The appellant must show clear error, not mere disagreement.