LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Evaluation of Evidence – Duty of Trial Court – Necessity to Consider Totality of Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It cannot be over-emphasised that the evaluation of relevant and material evidence before the court and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of the court of trial which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses while they testified. Where such court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its own views for the trial court's... The position in the present case is that the trial court failed to consider all the relevant evidence adduced before it and therefore reached its decision without evaluating the totality of the evidence led before it.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Sha (Jnr) & Anor v. Da Rap Kwan & Ors (2000) NLC-1401994(SC) at p. 15; Paras A–C.
"It cannot be over-emphasised that the evaluation of relevant and material evidence before the court and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of the court of trial which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses while they testified. Where such court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its own views for the trial court's... The position in the present case is that the trial court failed to consider all the relevant evidence adduced before it and therefore reached its decision without evaluating the totality of the evidence led before it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Trial courts must evaluate the totality of evidence, not just select portions. While appellate courts defer to proper evaluation, failure to consider all relevant evidence constitutes reversible error. The trial court’s primary function includes weighing all evidence and ascribing probative value. Partial evaluation—ignoring material evidence—deprives parties of proper adjudication. Where a trial court fails to consider relevant evidence, the appellate court may intervene. Proper evaluation requires comprehensive consideration of all evidence, not selective treatment. This ensures decisions rest on complete evidentiary foundation.