LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Retrial – Duty of Appellate Court Where Trial Judge Fails to Resolve Conflicts in Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Accordingly, when the court below observed in its judgment that 'the trial judge ought to have made specific findings upon the issues of ownership and should have examined the evidence and thereafter give his reasons for reaching the conclusion with regard to the view he held that the respondent was actively in possession of the land in dispute'. It was a correct observation on the failure of the trial judge, who had the witness before him to evaluate their evidence and give them probative value before coming to a conclusion.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Sagay v. Sajere & Anor (2000) NLC-801994(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras E–A.
"Accordingly, when the court below observed in its judgment that 'the trial judge ought to have made specific findings upon the issues of ownership and should have examined the evidence and thereafter give his reasons for reaching the conclusion with regard to the view he held that the respondent was actively in possession of the land in dispute'. It was a correct observation on the failure of the trial judge, who had the witness before him to evaluate their evidence and give them probative value before coming to a conclusion."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A trial judge must make specific findings on material issues, evaluate evidence, and give reasons for conclusions. Failure to do so, especially where witnesses were heard, constitutes a fundamental error. The trial judge has the advantage of seeing witnesses; that advantage is wasted if no evaluation occurs. In such cases, the appellate court cannot supply the missing evaluation. The proper course is to order a retrial so that a fresh judge can properly evaluate evidence and make necessary findings. This ensures justice is done and seen to be done.