LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Evaluation of Evidence — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Appellate Court Will Not Interfere with Concurrent Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a trial court unquestionably evaluates evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, the appellate court should only find out whether there is evidence on record on which the trial court could have acted. Once there is sufficient evidence, the appellate court cannot interfere.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Ezekwesili & Ors v. Agbapuonwu & Ors (2003) NLC-1081998(SC) at p. 36; Paras D–E.
"Where, as in the present case, a court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably raises the facts, what the Court of Appeal ought to do is to find out whether there is evidence on record on which the trial court could have acted. Once there is sufficient evidence on record from which the trial court arrived at its findings of fact, the appellate court cannot interfere."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact are binding on appeal. The principle applies to appellate practice. The appellate court only checks for evidentiary support. The rule promotes finality. The appellate court will not re-evaluate evidence. The principle is well-established.
