EVIDENCE LAW — Evaluation of Evidence — Appellate Court — Interference with Findings of Fact
Principle Statement
The fundamental principle is that the duty of evaluation of evidence is pre-eminently that of the trial court which alone has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies. And because the appellate court does not have that benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies, it would not ordinarily interfere with findings of facts of the trial court and this is particularly so where the evaluation involves the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. Where however, from the nature of the evidence, the evaluation would not entail demeanour and credibility of witnesses and simply entails the examination of oral and documentary evidence and the making of necessary deductions therefrom, the appellate court, is in as vantage a position as the trial court to evaluate or re-evaluate same to see if the findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Tabai, JSC, in Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) NLC-123-47-2003(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–C.
"The fundamental principle is that the duty of evaluation of evidence is pre-eminently that of the trial court which alone has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies. And because the appellate court does not have that benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies, it would not ordinarily interfere with findings of facts of the trial court and this is particularly so where the evaluation involves the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. Where however, from the nature of the evidence, the evaluation would not entail demeanour and credibility of witnesses and simply entails the examination of oral and documentary evidence and the making of necessary deductions therefrom, the appellate court, is in as vantage a position as the trial court to evaluate or re-evaluate same to see if the findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that appellate courts defer to trial courts on credibility assessment but can re-evaluate documentary and oral evidence where credibility is not in issue. The trial court has the advantage of seeing witnesses. The principle applies where findings of fact are challenged. It ensures that the trial court’s role is respected. The principle reflects the limitations of appellate review. It allows appellate courts to intervene where findings are unsupported. The court must determine if credibility is involved. The principle provides guidance on appellate review of factual findings.
