APPELLATE PRACTICE ā Concurrent Findings of Fact ā When Appellate Court Will Not Interfere
Ratio Decidendi
Per Mukhtar, JSC, in Abeke v. State (2007) NLC-123-271-2005(SC) at pp. 18ā19; Paras EāA. View Source:
"It is the prerogative of a trial judge who sees and listens to witnesses choose which to believe and ascribe probative value to his or her evidence. It is not the place of an appellate court to evaluate evidence, which has already been evaluated by a trial court which has not been shown to be perverse, and the position of the law is very clear on this. An appellate court will not interfere with findings based on such evaluation unless it is found to be erroneous."
Explanation / Scope
This is a restatement of the well-settled principle that the trial court has the unique advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses. Its findings of fact, particularly on credibility, are entitled to the highest respect. Where both lower courts have concurred on a factual finding, the Supreme Court will not disturb it. The only exceptions are where the finding is perverse (unsupported by evidence), is based on a wrong legal principle, or has led to a miscarriage of justice. The burden is on the appellant to clearly establish such exceptional grounds. The principle applies to both civil and criminal appeals.