LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Re-evaluation of Evidence – Interference with Findings of Fact
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When evaluation of evidence does not involve the credibility of witnesses but the complaint is against the non-evaluation or improper evaluation of evidence by the trial court, an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to do its own evaluation of the evidence on the printed record.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Nteogwuile v. Otuo (2001) NLC-1631996(SC) at p. 24; Paras A–C.
"When evaluation of evidence does not involve the credibility of witnesses but the complaint is against the non-evaluation or improper evaluation of evidence by the trial court, an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to do its own evaluation of the evidence on the printed record."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where the complaint is non-evaluation or improper evaluation of evidence (not involving witness credibility), the appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court. The appellate court can evaluate the evidence on the printed record. The trial court’s advantage of seeing witnesses is irrelevant where credibility is not in issue. The appellate court may re-evaluate documentary evidence, undisputed facts, and inferences. The court must not hesitate to correct errors of evaluation. The principle applies where the trial court ignored material evidence or drew wrong inferences. The appellate court may substitute its own evaluation. The court must demonstrate that it has evaluated the evidence.
