APPELLATE PRACTICE — Standard of Review — Re-evaluation of Evidence by Appellate Court — Where Trial Court Fails to Properly Consider Evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Per Oguntade, JSC, in Garuba v. Yahaya (2007) NLC-123-84-1999(SC) at p. 16; Paras A–C:
"Where a trial court has drawn wrong inference from primary facts, the appellate court can reject the inference and make what it considers to be the right inference supported by evidence. It is also trite that where a trial court has failed in its duty to properly consider the evidence before it which led it to draw wrong conclusions from the evidence it accepted, the Appeal court will be perfectly justified in re-evaluating and re-considering the whole evidence in order to arrive at a just decision."
Explanation / Scope
Where a trial court draws wrong inferences from primary facts or fails to properly consider evidence, the appellate court may re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions. This is an exception to the general rule against interference with findings of fact. The appellate court can intervene to ensure a just decision.