LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Findings of Fact – When Appellate Court May Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court will only disturb findings of fact if the trial judge made no use of the advantage of seeing witnesses. If the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence, the appellate court will not re-evaluate it.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Nwankpu v. Ewulu (1995) NLC-761992(SC) at p. 46; Paras B–D.
"The principles under which a Court of Appeal can interfere with the findings of fact of a trial court have been well settled. A Court of Appeal which has not had the same advantage which the trial Judge enjoyed of seeing the witnesses and watching their demeanour would only disturb the findings of fact of such a Judge where it is satisfied that the trial Judge had made no use of such an advantage. If the learned trial Judge has clearly and properly evaluated the evidence before him, it is not for the Court of Appeal to re-evaluate the same evidence and come to its own decision."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings on witness credibility. Interference requires that the trial judge failed to use his advantage. The appellate court will not re-evaluate evidence. The principle applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The appellant must show that the findings are perverse. The rule promotes finality and respects the trial court’s role. The appellate court will correct errors of law but not re-evaluate facts. The principle is well-established.