LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Appellate Review – Evaluation of Evidence – Duty of Appellate Court Where Exception Applies
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Clearly, where such exceptions exist and an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate evidence which has been given in a case, the appellate court must not hesitate to evaluate such evidence and make the necessary irresistible inference that can be drawn from the proved facts.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Nnorodim & Anor v. Ezeani & Ors (2001) NLC-1521995(SC) at p. 3; Paras E–G.
"Clearly, where such exceptions exist and an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate evidence which has been given in a case, the appellate court must not hesitate to evaluate such evidence and make the necessary irresistible inference that can be drawn from the proved facts."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where the exception applies—credibility not in issue—the appellate court must not hesitate to evaluate evidence and draw irresistible inferences from proved facts. The court is in as good a position as the trial court. The duty is mandatory, not discretionary. The appellate court should not defer where deference adds nothing. The court must actively engage with the evidence, not merely rubber-stamp trial court findings. The inference must be irresistible—the only logical conclusion from the facts. The exception preserves meaningful appellate review. The court must demonstrate that it has considered the evidence and drawn appropriate inferences. This ensures that errors in inference are corrected.
