Concurrent findings of fact

• Pages: 387-406

387

(39) CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT

715. Addressing on appeal the issue of concurrent findings of fact of lower

Courts.

“The point of concurrent finding of fact by both of the two lower Courts was

respectively made by respondent’s counsel after the conclusion of the 1st issue

on the one hand and again after the arguments on conclusion of the 2nd and 3rd

issues argued together, on the other, and it gave the impression that respondent’s

counsel was repetitious in this regard, an approach that must be condemned. A

neater approach, in my view, would have been to take the issue of concurrent

findings of fact in respect of all the various issues together at the end of counsel’s

submissions on the identified issues for determination; this would have placed

the submissions on concurrent findings on a clearer and separate pedestal without

being tortuously repetitious.” - Per Achike, J.S.C., in Oduneye v. State Suit No.

S.C.88/2000; (2001) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 697) 311 at 331.

716. Appellate Court’s attitude to evaluation of facts and findings of facts of

trial Courts.

“I think it has to be appreciated that the evaluation of evidence and findings of facts

are within the province of the trial Court, and that an appellate Court will only interfere

if such evaluation and findings are perverse and show misapprehension of the facts.

See Ramonu Atolagbe v. Korede Shorun (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part. 2) 360.” - Per

Nnamani, J.S.C., in Are v. Ipaye Suit No. S.C.225/1986; (1990) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. I)

426 at 435; (1990) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 132) 298 at 313.

717 . Appellate Court’s attitude to findings of fact by trial Court.

“It is now an accepted principle of law that the appellate Court will not interfere with

the findings of the trial Court which is supported by evidence. If however the trial

Court failed to make any finding on an established fact, the appellate Court will

make the necessary finding: Balogun v. Agboola (1974) 10 S.C. 111.” - Per

Olatawura, J.S.C., in Ike v. Ugboaja Suit No. S.C.210/1988; (1993) 6 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 301) 539 at 555.

718. Appellate Court’s reaction to findings of trial Court.

“I must hasten to correct any erroneous impression that Mogaji v. Odofin or

Woluchem v. Gudi established any Rule of Law. Neither did. But the decision in

each established certain Principles to guide the Court in future decision where the

facts are same or similar. Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291 at p. 295 merely re-

stated the principles governing or that should guide an appellate Court asked to

reverse, or faced with the task of reversing, the findings of fact of the trial Court.” -

Per Oputa, J.S.C., in Dibiamaka v. Osakwe Suit No. S.C.136/1985; (1989) 20

N.S.C.C. (Pt. II) 253 at 260; (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 107) 101 at 113.

383 Concurrent findings of fact Paras. 715-718

388

719. Attacking concurrent findings of facts in a ground of appeal as errors in

law.

“It is also misleading for a counsel to attack concurrent findings of fact in a ground

of appeal (such as grounds 4 and 5 in the instant case) as ‘errors in law’. See Ibodo

v. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 S.C. 42, Chinwendu v. Mbamali (1980) 3 4 S.C. 31.” - Per

Musdapher, J.C.A., in Sossa v. Fokpo Suit No. CA/A/51/97; (2000) 20 W.R.N. 89

at 98; (2001) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 693) 16 at 27 .

720. Attitude of Supreme Court to concurrent findings of fact.

(1) “Hence concurrent findings of facts have been made. It is trite that in a situation

such as this, this Court will not readily interfere with the findings made by the lower

Courts unless there is some miscarriage of justice or the violation of some principles

of law or procedure See Ometa v. Numa (1935) 11 N.L.R. 18 and Stool of Abinabina

v. Enyimadu (1952) 12 W.A.C.A. 171. The appellants have not attack any of the

findings and so they stand undisturbed and Section 54 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 112

applies.” - Per Uwais, J.S.C., in Adigun v. Governor Osun State Suit No. S.C.168/

1992; (1995) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 385) 513 at 534-535.

(2) “It is settled law that this Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent

findings of the two lower Courts unless there is some miscarriage of justice or a

violation of some principles of law or procedure. See Ugwumba v. The State (1993)

5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 296) 660 at 671, Osayame v. The State (1966) N.M.L.R. 388,

Sanyaolu v. The State (1976) 6 S.C. 37, Nwachukwu v. The State (1986) 2 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 25) 765, Onuoha v. The State (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 83) 460 and Wankey v.

The State (1993) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 295) 542 at 552. There is in this case no miscarriage

of justice or a violation of any principles of law or procedure. I can find no justification

for interfering with the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Court below on

the facts of this case. The said findings are amply supported by evidence before the

Court. I must therefore resolve the first issue for determination against the appellant.”

– Per Iguh, J.S.C., in Baridam v. State Suit No. S.C.145/1991; (1994) 1 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 320) 250 at 262.

(3) “There have therefore been two concurrent findings of fact of the respondents

root of title, and, as these findings have not been faulted by the appellant, this Court

will not normally re open such an issue. See Ogunsola Ajadi & Anor. v. Ladunni

Okenihun (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 3) 484 at 495 and Dawodu v. Danmole (1962) 1

All N.L.R. 702. This Court will only interfere with the finding of fact on an issue

where it is satis-fied that on the evidence adduced the finding is patently wrong See

Ono-wan & Anor. v. Iserhien (1976) 1 N.M.L.R. 263. I see no substance in this

compliant.” - Per Kawu, J.S.C., in Ikuomola v. Oniwaya Suit No. S.C.86/1987;

(1990) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. III) 95 at 101; (1990) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 146) 617 at 625.

Paras. 719-720 384