LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Findings of Fact – Where Trial Judge Fails in Duty
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A trial Judge has a primary duty to receive admissible evidence, assess the same, give it probative value and make specific findings of fact thereon. When he fails in this regard, it is an invitation to the appellate court to intervene and if the appellate court can make its own findings from the evidence available, it will interfere with the findings of the trial Judge since it is in as good a position as the trial court on that score.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Adeleke & Ors v. Iyanda & Ors (2001) NLC-561996(SC) at p. 15; Paras A–C.
"A trial Judge has a primary duty to receive admissible evidence, assess the same, give it probative value and make specific findings of fact thereon. When he fails in this regard, it is an invitation to the appellate court to intervene and if the appellate court can make its own findings from the evidence available, it will interfere with the findings of the trial Judge since it is in as good a position as the trial court on that score."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The trial judge must assess evidence, assign probative value, and make specific findings. Failure to perform this duty invites appellate intervention. Where the appellate court can make its own findings from available evidence, it will interfere—it is in as good a position as the trial court regarding documentary evidence or undisputed facts. However, where credibility of witnesses is involved, the appellate court may be more circumspect. The principle ensures that trial judges cannot avoid their fact-finding duty without consequence. Interference is not automatic but justified where the trial judge’s failure compromises justice.
CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE
None recorded.