LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — When Supreme Court Will Interfere with Concurrent Findings of Fact
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts unless such findings are shown to be perverse, not supported by the evidence, or have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Ejionwu v. The State (1995) NLC-2101992(SC) at p. 10; Paras. A–C.
"This court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts unless such findings are shown to be perverse or not supported by the evidence, or there has been a miscarriage of justice. The findings of fact by the learned trial Judge in this case are clearly unimpeachable and none of them have been shown to be unjustified or wrongly applied to the circumstances of the case."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court. Interference requires perversity, lack of evidence support, or miscarriage of justice. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. The Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases. The rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The appellant must show clear error. The court will examine whether the findings are supported by evidence.