LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Principle of Non-Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is well established principle that an appellate court will very rarely, if at all interfere with the findings of facts made by the trial court. This is because such findings of fact enjoy the privilege of passing through the furnace of acrimonious cross-examination, the tooth comb scrutiny of the observation of the witnesses reactions and assessment of the veracity of their testimony. Accordingly, such findings ought to be accorded due respect in appellate courts which did not have the advantage of the trial Judge. However, the findings are not sacrosanct. Where the conclusions made from the findings are not supported by the evidence relied upon, or the proper conclusions or inferences are not drawn from the evidence, or where the trial court has failed to evaluate the evidence, the appellate court will, in the interest of justice, be free to do so.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Ibhafidon v. Igbinosun (2001) NLC-2371990(SC) at p. 9; Paras D–F, p. 10; Para A.
"It is well established principle that an appellate court will very rarely, if at all interfere with the findings of facts made by the trial court. This is because such findings of fact enjoy the privilege of passing through the furnace of acrimonious cross-examination, the tooth comb scrutiny of the observation of the witnesses reactions and assessment of the veracity of their testimony. Accordingly, such findings ought to be accorded due respect in appellate courts which did not have the advantage of the trial Judge. However, the findings are not sacrosanct. Where the conclusions made from the findings are not supported by the evidence relied upon, or the proper conclusions or inferences are not drawn from the evidence, or where the trial court has failed to evaluate the evidence, the appellate court will, in the interest of justice, be free to do so."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts rarely interfere with trial court findings because the trial court sees witnesses, observes demeanour, and assesses credibility. Such findings deserve respect. However, they are not sacrosanct. Interference is justified where: (1) conclusions are not supported by evidence; (2) proper inferences not drawn; or (3) trial court failed to evaluate evidence. The appellate court may step in to correct manifest error. Deference is not abdication. The trial court’s advantage is greatest on credibility; less on documentary evidence or inferences. The appellate court must balance respect for trial findings with duty to correct injustice. Interference is exceptional but necessary.