LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Retrial – When Appellate Court Can Determine Appeal Without Ordering Retrial – Distinction Between Cases Involving Credibility and Those Determinable from Uncontested Facts
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where what is shown as the failure of the trial judge is a determination of vital issues by appraising and evaluating evidence before it, an appellate court will have no alternative but to order a re-trial.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Sagay v. Sajere & Anor (2000) NLC-801994(SC) at pp. 13–14; Paras A–B.
"Where what is shown as the failure of the trial judge is a determination of vital issues by appraising and evaluating evidence before it, an appellate court will have no alternative but to order a re-trial."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where the trial judge fails to properly evaluate evidence and determine vital issues, a retrial is mandatory. The appellate court cannot step into the trial judge’s shoes to evaluate evidence and make findings, especially where credibility is involved. However, if the evidence is uncontested or the issue is purely legal, the appellate court may determine the appeal without ordering a retrial. The distinction turns on whether the defect involves factual evaluation requiring credibility assessment. If so, retrial is the only appropriate remedy.