LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Findings of Fact — Circumstances in Which Appellate Court Will Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact unless they are unsound, perverse, or not supported by evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Abidoye & Ors v. Alawode & Ors (2001) NLC-1271996(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras E–A.
"An appellate court will not re-evaluate or interfere with the findings of fact of a trial court without clear proof that those findings were perverse or not the result of a proper exercise of judicial discretion. An appellate court will not therefore interfere with the findings of fact of a trial court except such findings are unsound, perverse or is not supported by evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings of fact. Interference requires clear proof that the findings are perverse, unsound, or not supported by evidence. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion. The appellate court will not re-evaluate evidence simply because it might have reached a different conclusion. The principle respects the trial court’s advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error. Interference is justified where the trial court ignored material evidence, drew wrong inferences, or applied wrong legal principles. The appellate court’s role is corrective, not substitutional.
