LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Standard of Review — Appellate Court May Evaluate Evidence Where Credibility of Witnesses Not in Issue
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.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Adio, JSC, in Oba Moshood Osuolale Adeyeri II & Ors v. Aderibigbe Atanda & Ors (1995) NLC-2181989(SC) at p. 16; Paras. A–B.
"Generally, 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."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An appellate court may re-evaluate evidence where the trial court failed to evaluate it properly, if credibility is not in issue. The principle applies to documentary evidence and undisputed facts. The appellate court has the same advantage as the trial court in such cases. The rule promotes correction of errors. The appellate court will not defer to trial court findings where no evaluation was done. The appellant must show that the trial court failed in its duty.