LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Findings of Fact – When Appellate Court May Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is an elementary principle of law that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact made by the trial court which are supported by evidence except in circumstances such as where the trial court has not made a proper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses at the trial or where it has drawn wrong conclusions from accepted credible evidence or has taken an erroneous view of the evidence or the findings of fact are perverse in the sense that they do not flow from the evidence accepted by it.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Alli & Anor v. Alesinloye & Ors (2000) NLC-961994(SC) at pp. 21–22; Paras E–A.
"It is an elementary principle of law that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact made by the trial court which are supported by evidence except in circumstances such as where the trial court has not made a proper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses at the trial or where it has drawn wrong conclusions from accepted credible evidence or has taken an erroneous view of the evidence or the findings of fact are perverse in the sense that they do not flow from the evidence accepted by it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings due to the trial judge’s advantage in assessing witness credibility. Interference is justified only where: (1) the trial court failed to properly use its advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses; (2) it drew wrong conclusions from accepted evidence; (3) it took an erroneous view of evidence; or (4) findings are perverse—i.e., unsupported by or contradictory to accepted evidence. This preserves the trial court’s primacy in fact-finding while enabling correction of manifest errors. Deference is not absolute where findings are clearly unsupported.