APPELLATE PRACTICE — Evaluation of Evidence — Appellate Intervention — Where Trial Court Fails to Properly Evaluate Evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Ayanru v. Mandilas Limited (2007) NLC-123-61-2002(SC) at p. 13; Paras D–E:
"The law is that where a trial Court fails to properly evaluate the evidence on record or erroneously does so or the conclusion reached is not supported by the evidence on record, then the Court of Appeal in the interest of justice must exercise its own powers of reviewing those facts and drawing the appropriate inference from the proved facts."
Explanation / Scope
An appellate court will generally not interfere with findings of fact by the trial court. However, where the trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence, evaluates it erroneously, or reaches a conclusion unsupported by evidence, the appellate court must intervene. In such cases, the appellate court has the power to review the facts and draw its own inferences from the proved evidence.