LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CUSTOMARY LAW — Customary Arbitration — Appellate Court’s Power to Interfere with Findings of Fact
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court will not lightly set aside findings of fact made by a trial court unless such findings are perverse.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Egesimba v. Onuzuruike (2002) NLC-1181998(SC) at p. 18; Paras A–E.
"The attitude of an appellate court to findings of fact made by a trial court has been stated in a number of decisions both of this court and of the Court of Appeal. It is now well settled that an appellate court will not lightly set aside findings of fact made by a trial court unless such findings are perverse."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings of fact. Interference requires perversity. The principle applies to findings in customary arbitration cases. The trial court has the advantage of seeing witnesses. The appellate court will not re-evaluate evidence. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The rule promotes finality and respects the trial court’s role. The appellate court will examine whether the findings are supported by evidence. The principle applies to both civil and criminal cases. The court will not substitute its own view for that of the trial court.