LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Findings of Fact – Duty of Appellate Court Regarding Findings of Credibility by Trial Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a trial court has made improper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing witnesses, i.e., where findings are not supported by the printed record or findings are not proper conclusions or inferences to be drawn from evidence, the Court of Appeal will and must in the interest of justice interfere by altering, reversing or setting aside such perverse findings; in matters of credibility based on demeanour of witnesses, a Court of Appeal cannot and ought not interfere as it did not have the advantage of seeing witnesses testify; if what is involved are findings based on inferences drawn from evidence, the Court of Appeal is in as good a position as the trial court and can make its own findings if the trial judge's findings are wrong.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Where a trial court has made improper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses i.e., where the finding of the lower court is not supported by the printed record or the finding is not the proper conclusion or inference to be drawn from the evidence, that the Court of Appeal will and must in the interest of justice, interfere by altering, reversing or setting aside such perverse findings of the lower court. In matters of credibility based on demeanour of witnesses, a Court of Appeal cannot and ought not interfere — as it did not have the advantage of seeing such witnesses testify. If what is involved are findings based on inferences which the learned trial Judge has drawn from the evidence, the Court of Appeal is in as good a position as the trial court and can make its own findings if in its view the findings made by the learned trial Judge are wrong."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle distinguishes appellate treatment of different finding types: (1) Credibility based on demeanour: Maximum deference—appellate courts cannot interfere because they lack trial courts’ advantage of observing witnesses. (2) Findings unsupported by record or improper inferences: Appellate courts must interfere—these are perverse findings that misuse the trial advantage. (3) Findings based on documentary evidence or inferences from established facts: No deference—appellate courts are equally positioned to draw inferences and can substitute their findings if trial court erred. The framework recognizes: trial courts’ unique position for demeanour assessment, appellate competence for legal reasoning and inference-drawing, and duty to correct perverse findings. “Improper use” means: findings contradicting record, conclusions not supported by evidence, or inferences logically unjustified. “Perverse” means no reasonable tribunal could reach such findings. This nuanced approach balances: respecting trial court advantages (demeanour) against appellate oversight responsibility (correcting errors in reasoning and unsupported findings).