APPELLATE PRACTICE — Findings of Fact — Interference by appellate court — Circumstances permitting
Ratio Decidendi
Per Ogbuagu, JSC, in Sapo & Anor v. Sunmonu (2010) NLC-123-314-2001(SC) at p. 17, para. C – p. 18, para. A:
"The law is settled that although it is no business of an appeal court to substitute its view of the evidence for that of the trial Judge who has the singular opportunity of listening to the witnesses and watching them, the appeal court could however, in the interest of justice, disturb, alter, reverse or set aside the lower court's findings of facts under certain circumstances. Among such circumstances are: (1) where the trial court fails to evaluate the evidence adduced before it; or (2) the trial court has drawn wrong inferences from the primary facts found; or (3) the facts found by the trial court are wrongfully applied to the circumstances of the case or the findings of facts are not reasonably justified or supported by the credible evidence given in the case."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes the circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with a trial court’s findings of fact: failure to evaluate evidence, wrong inferences from primary facts, wrongful application of facts, or findings not supported by credible evidence. The principle applies where findings are challenged. It ensures that appellate courts correct errors. The principle reflects the limited scope of appellate review. It prevents unjust findings from standing. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on interfering with findings of fact.