EVIDENCE LAW — Findings of Fact — Credibility vs Evaluation — Distinction and Appellate Attitude
Ratio Decidendi
Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Wachukwu & Anor v. Owunwanne & Anor (2011) NLC-123-87-2001(SC) at p. 31; Paras A—C:
"There is a clear difference between findings of fact based on credibility of witnesses and findings of fact based on evaluation of evidence. In the latter case the Court of Appeal is in as good a position to evaluate the evidence as the court of trial. In the former case an Appeal Court would be reluctant to upset the findings of a trial judge. This is so because it was the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses. He was able to observe their demeanour. As quite rightly pointed out by the Court of Appeal findings of fact based on credibility of witnesses would be set aside if they are perverse, unreasonable, or not supported by evidence."
Explanation / Scope
This principle distinguishes findings based on credibility (where the trial court has the advantage) from findings based on evaluation (where the appellate court is in an equally good position). The principle applies where findings are challenged on appeal. It ensures that credibility findings are respected while evaluation findings may be reviewed. The principle reflects the limits of appellate review. It allows interference where findings are perverse, unreasonable, or unsupported. The court must distinguish between the two. The principle provides guidance on appellate review of findings.