LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Evaluation of Evidence — Appellate Court’s Power to Re-Evaluate Evidence Where Trial Court Erred
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court should be wary to set aside trial court findings where the trial court saw and heard witnesses. But where the trial court failed to raise proper inferences upon the facts presented, the appellate court ought to overturn such erroneous conclusion.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Royal Ade Nigeria Ltd. & Anor v. National Oil and Chemical Marketing Company Plc (2004) NLC-32000(SC) at p. 15; Paras A–B.
"I am aware that an appellate court should ordinarily be wary to set aside the findings of a trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. But where as in this case, the trial court saw and heard the witnesses failed to raise the proper inferences upon the facts presented to it, then the appellate court ought to and justifiably too overturn such erroneous conclusion reached by the trial court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts may overturn trial court findings where the trial court failed to draw proper inferences from facts. The usual deference to trial court credibility findings does not protect erroneous inferences. The principle applies to appellate practice. The rule allows appellate intervention where the trial court misapplied logic or reason to proven facts. The appellate court can draw correct inferences from the evidence on record.
