LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Standard of Review – Burden on Appellant in Civil Appeal
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Every valid judgment delivered by a competent court is presumed to be right. The burden is therefore, on an appellant to show why the judgment he has appealed from in a civil case should be set aside. If he cannot clearly convince the appeal court or if all he has done merely raises a doubt whether the judgment is right or wrong, the judgment stays and the appeal fails.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Obulor & Anor v. Oboro (2001) NLC-1321997(SC) at p. 5; Paras D–E.
"Every valid judgment delivered by a competent court is presumed to be right. The burden is therefore, on an appellant to show why the judgment he has appealed from in a civil case should be set aside. If he cannot clearly convince the appeal court or if all he has done merely raises a doubt whether the judgment is right or wrong, the judgment stays and the appeal fails."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A valid judgment from a competent court is presumed correct. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating why it should be set aside. Mere doubt about the judgment’s correctness is insufficient—the appellant must clearly convince the appellate court of error. If the appellant only raises uncertainty, the judgment stands and the appeal fails. The presumption of correctness reflects respect for trial courts. The appellant must demonstrate substantial error, not merely suggest a different conclusion. The burden is heavy. The principle prevents appeals based on speculation or minor disagreements. The appellant must point to specific errors of law or fact. The presumption applies to both findings of fact and conclusions of law.
