LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Interference with Findings of Fact — When an Appellate Court May Reverse Findings of a Trial Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with trial court findings except where the trial court has not made proper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing witnesses, or has drawn wrong conclusions from accepted credible evidence, or taken an erroneous view of evidence, or its findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Mamman v. Salaudeen (2005) NLC-1112001(SC) at p. 11; Paras D–E.
"The law is that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the trial court except in circumstances such as where the trial court has not made a proper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses at the trial or where it has drawn wrong conclusions from accepted credible evidence or has taken an erroneous view of the evidence adduced before it or its findings of fact are perverse or unsupported by the evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings absent identified errors. Interference justified where trial court misused witness observation, drew wrong conclusions from credible evidence, took erroneous view, or made perverse/unsupported findings. The principle applies to appellate practice.
