LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — When Interference by Supreme Court Justified
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
As a general rule, the Supreme Court does not normally disturb concurrent findings where there is sufficient evidence to support them. Granting a relief not claimed is not such a ground, and no miscarriage of justice resulted from the order.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Ogoyi v. Umagba (1995) NLC-1401991(SC) at pp. 10–11; Paras. D–A.
"As a general rule, this court does not normally disturb or upset such concurrent findings where there is sufficient evidence to support them. The granting of the relief not claimed by the 1st respondent in this case is not such a ground and no miscarriage of justice resulted from the order."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings supported by evidence are not disturbed. Granting an unclaimed relief is not a ground for interference if no miscarriage of justice resulted. The principle applies the harmless error doctrine. The appellant must show prejudice. The court will examine whether the error affected the outcome. The rule promotes finality.