LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Appellate Practice — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Circumstances for Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
No appellate court should disturb concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are perverse, based on a wrong proposition of law, inadmissible evidence, or no evidence at all.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Belgore, JSC, in Layinka & Anor v. Makinde & Ors (2002) NLC-1341998(SC) at p. 4; Paras A–B.
"No appellate court should disturb the concurrent findings like these unless those findings are perverse or are based on wrong proposition of law or inadmissible evidence or no evidence at all. Going through a line of decisions, this court will not disturb a clear finding of fact by lower courts."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court unless they are perverse, based on wrong law, inadmissible evidence, or no evidence. 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. The findings must be manifestly unsupported to warrant interference.
