LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Findings of Fact – Limited Grounds for Appellate Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact made by a trial court except where such findings are perverse, not supported by evidence, or not arrived at as a result of a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Ude v. Chimbo (1998) NLC-1291994(SC) at p. 20; Paras C–E.
"It is trite law that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact made by a trial court except in certain circumstances such as where it is clear or established that such findings are perverse or are not supported by evidence or have not been arrived at as a result of a proper exercise of judicial discretion..."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings. Interference requires perversity, lack of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error. The principle respects the trial court’s advantage in seeing witnesses. The rule applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The appellate court will not re-evaluate evidence. The principle promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The court will examine whether the findings are supported by evidence.
