LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Concurrent Findings — Interference with Findings of Fact — Evaluation of Documentary Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the evidence adduced before the trial court is documentary and not based on the demeanour or credibility of witnesses, the appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate such documentary evidence and draw the necessary inferences.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Ishola v. UBN Ltd (2005) NLC-1251996(SC) at p. 14; Paras C–D.
"Where the evidence adduced before the trial court is documentary and not based on the demeanour or credibility of witness, the appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate such documentary evidence and draw the necessary inferences."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts can freely evaluate documentary evidence because it does not depend on witness demeanour. The usual deference to trial court findings applies less to documentary evidence. The principle applies to appellate practice. The rule allows appellate courts to draw their own inferences from documents. Both trial and appellate courts are equally positioned to interpret documentary evidence. Interference with findings based solely on documents is more readily justified.
