LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Interference with Findings of Fact — When Appellate Court May Interfere with Findings of Trial Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is the duty of the Court of Appeal or any appellate Court to interfere with the trial court's decision where the trial court never adverted to the most important facts in the pleadings and evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Belgore, JSC Ito & Ors v. Ekpe & Ors (2000) NLC-61993(SC) at p. 29; Paras. A–C.
"It is the duty of Court of Appeal or any appellate Court to interfere with trial court's decision where the trial court never adverted to the most important facts in the pleadings and evidence. Court of Appeal no doubt relied on S.16 Court of Appeal Act to arrive at the decision the trial court ought to have arrived at had it considered all the important issues of estoppel in the pleadings and evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle establishes an exception to the rule that appellate courts defer to trial court findings of fact. An appellate court must intervene where the trial court failed to consider—i.e., did not advert to—the most important facts in the pleadings and evidence. Such failure constitutes a dereliction of judicial duty. Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act empowers the appellate court to re-evaluate evidence and reach the decision the trial court ought to have reached. This corrective mechanism prevents miscarriages of justice when the trial court’s factual evaluation is fundamentally incomplete on material points.