LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Interference with Findings of Fact — When Appellate Court May Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
This principle applies only where the decisive issue was the credibility of the witnesses and not where the findings were based on evaluation of evidence as in this case.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Iheanacho & Ors v. Chigere & Ors (2004) NLC-1512000(SC) at p. 13; Paras D–E.
"I hold the view that this principle applies only where the decisive issue was the credibility of the witnesses and not where the findings were based on evaluation of evidence as in this case. See Okonkwo v. C.C.B. (Nig) Plc. (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt.507) 48 at 67; Musa v. Yerima (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt.511) 27 and Ugo v. Indiamaowei (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt.633) 152 at 164."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts may interfere with findings of fact only where the decisive issue is witness credibility. Where findings are based on evaluation of evidence, interference is not permitted. The principle applies to appellate practice. The rule respects trial court’s advantage in assessing credibility. The court cannot re-evaluate evidence as a fresh tribunal. The distinction determines when interference is justified.