LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Findings of Fact – When Appellate Court May Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is trite law that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact of a 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 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 and do not flow from the evidence accepted by it.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Oshatoba & Anor v. Olujitan & Anor (2000) NLC-331994(SC) at p. 20; Paras A–C.
"It is trite law that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact of a 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 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 and do not flow from the evidence accepted by it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings due to the trial judge’s advantage in assessing witness credibility. However, interference is justified in specific circumstances: (1) improper use of the opportunity to see and hear witnesses; (2) drawing wrong conclusions from accepted evidence; (3) erroneous view of evidence; or (4) perverse findings not flowing from accepted evidence. These exceptions ensure that deference does not shield manifest errors. The appellate court’s role is corrective—to intervene where findings are unsupported, contradictory, or clearly wrong, not to substitute its own view for that of the trial judge.