LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Interference with Findings of Fact — Role of Appellate Court Where Trial Court’s Decision Is Based on Credibility of Witnesses
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In matters of credibility based on demeanour of witnesses, a Court of Appeal cannot and ought not interfere, as it did not have the advantage of seeing such witnesses testify.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Olatunji v. Adisa (1995) NLC-2361986(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras. D–E.
"In matters of credibility based on demeanour of witnesses, a Court of Appeal cannot and ought not interfere – as it did not have the advantage of seeing such witnesses testify."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The trial court has the advantage of observing witness demeanour. The appellate court defers to its credibility findings. Interference is not justified simply because the appellate court would have reached a different conclusion. The principle applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The appellant must show that the trial court’s findings are perverse. The rule promotes finality and respects the trial court’s role. The appellate court will not re-evaluate credibility on paper.