CIVIL PROCEDURE ā Concurrent Findings of Fact ā Appellate Intervention ā When Higher Court May Disturb Concurrent Findings
Principle Statement
The trite position of the law is that where there are concurrent findings or decisions of two lower courts, a higher court of appeal does not interfere with such findings or decisions except where they are shown to be based on insufficient evidence or they are punctuated by perversity as a result of wrong application of the substantive or procedural law.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per I.T. Muhammad, JSC, in Kopek Construction Ltd v. Ekisola (2010) NLC-123-213-2002(SC) at p. 27; Paras CāE.
"The trite position of the law is that where there are concurrent findings or decisions of two lower courts, a higher court of appeal does not interfere with such findings or decisions except where they are shown to be based on insufficient evidence or they are punctuated by perversity as a result of wrong application of the substantive or procedural law."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a higher court will not interfere with concurrent findings unless they are based on insufficient evidence or are perverse due to wrong application of law. The principle applies where concurrent findings are challenged. It ensures that findings are respected. The principle reflects the limited scope of appellate review. It prevents unnecessary interference. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on when higher courts may disturb concurrent findings.
