LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Evaluation of Evidence — Distinction Between Review and Evaluation of Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A review imports a critical examination of evidence while an evaluation imports a determination of the value of evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Abidoye & Ors v. Alawode & Ors (2001) NLC-1271996(SC) at p. 11; Paras C–E.
"A review imports a critical examination of evidence while an evaluation imports a determination of the value of evidence. The trial court having accepted the evidence of the traditional history and acts of ownership of the respondents in rejecting that of the appellants as incoherent, inconsistent and full of mere denials of obvious truth and hence unreliable has discharged the duty of reviewing and evaluating the evidence tendered before it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Review and evaluation of evidence are distinct judicial functions. Review involves critical examination of the evidence presented. Evaluation involves determining the probative value or weight to be attached to the evidence. The trial court must perform both functions. It must examine all evidence and then assess its credibility and weight. The court must explain why it accepts one version over another. The appellate court will not re-evaluate evidence unless the trial court failed in its duty. The distinction is important for appellate review. A trial court that merely reviews without evaluating fails its duty. A proper decision requires both review and evaluation.
CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE
None recorded.