LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Findings of Fact — Concurrent Findings — Attitude of Supreme Court to Concurrent Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court will not allow a question of fact to be reopened where there are concurrent findings by two lower courts in the absence of special circumstances such as perversity, patent error, or improper exercise of judicial discretion.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Abidoye & Ors v. Alawode & Ors (2001) NLC-1271996(SC) at p. 9; Paras B–D.
"The attitude of this court as expressed by a long line of decided cases has been that it will not allow a question of fact to be re-opened where there has been two concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts in the absence of special circumstances. The appellants have not shown that the relevant findings of fact by the two lower courts are perverse, patently erroneous, or not the result of a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Nor have the appellants also shown any special circumstances warranting interference with the findings."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Supreme Court will not reopen concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts unless special circumstances exist. Special circumstances include perversity, patent error, improper exercise of judicial discretion, or miscarriage of justice. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating such circumstances. Mere disagreement with the findings is insufficient. 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 where the findings are manifestly unsupported or unreasonable. The principle promotes finality and judicial efficiency.
