LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Supreme Court Will Not Interfere Absent Perversity or Miscarriage of Justice
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Nothing has been established to show that concurrent findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, reached by wrong approach, or that a miscarriage of justice will result. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court cannot interfere.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Mainagge v. Gwamma (2004) NLC-191998(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–C.
"Nothing has been established by the appellant to show that the said findings are perverse or unsupported by the evidence or that they were arrived at as a result of a wrong approach to the evidence. It is also not shown that the findings were reached at as a result of a wrong application of any principle of substantive law or procedure or that they are patently erroneous and that a miscarriage of justice will result if they are allowed to remain. In these circumstances, this court cannot interfere with them."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings are binding. The appellant must show perversity or miscarriage. The principle applies to all appeals. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence. The rule promotes finality. The principle is well-established.
