LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Evaluation of Evidence – Duty of Trial Court and Attitude of Appellate Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court will not normally upset findings of fact made by trial courts unless such findings are unsupported, are not proper conclusions or inferences drawn from the evidence, or where the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence before it.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Omoborinola v. Military Governor of Ondo State (1998) NLC-1581995(SC) at p. 23; Para A.
"It is trite law that an appellate court would not normally upset the findings of facts made by trial courts… unless such findings are unsupported or are not proper conclusions or inferences drawn from the evidence or where the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence before it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings of fact. Interference is allowed only for unsupported findings, improper inferences, or failure to evaluate evidence. The principle applies to all appeals. The trial court has the advantage of seeing witnesses. The rule promotes finality and efficiency. The appellant must show error.
