LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Interference with Findings of Fact — When Appellate Court May Reverse Trial Court’s Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a trial court properly evaluates evidence and makes findings fully supported by the evidence and not perverse, the appellate court cannot substitute its own views. The appellate court should only determine whether there is evidence supporting the findings.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Gaji & Ors v. Paye (2003) NLC-4099(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras D–A.
"Where a court of trial, unquestionably evaluates the evidence and makes definite findings of fact, which are fully supported by such evidence and are not perverse, it is not the business of the Court of Appeal to substitute its own views for those of the trial court. What the Court of Appeal ought to do is to find out whether there is evidence on which the trial court arrived at its findings: Once there is such evidence on record, the appellate court cannot interfere."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings supported by evidence. The principle applies to all appeals. The court will not re-evaluate evidence. The rule promotes finality. The appellant must show error. The principle is well-established.