TORT LAW ā Negligence ā Contributory Negligence ā Appellate Interference with Trial Court’s Findings on Credibility
Principle Statement
The question as to who was really responsible for causing the collision between the two vehicles rested principally on the question of credibility of the respective evidence put in place before the trial court by the parties. This is an area which by law, the court below is not expected to venture into if the decision of this Court in many cases including Adebayo Bashorun v. Johnson Olorunfemi (1989) 1 S.C.N.J. 23 at 31 is taken into account.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Oshe v. Okin Biscuits Limited & Anor (2010) NLC-123-396-2002(SC) at pp. 11ā12; Paras DāA.
"The question as to who was really responsible for causing the collision between the two vehicles rested principally on the question of credibility of the respective evidence put in place before the trial court by the parties. This is an area which by law, the court below is not expected to venture into if the decision of this Court in many cases including Adebayo Bashorun v. Johnson Olorunfemi (1989) 1 S.C.N.J. 23 at 31 is taken into account."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that appellate courts should not interfere with trial court findings on credibility in negligence cases. The question of who caused an accident rests on credibility, which is the trial court’s province. The principle applies in negligence claims. It ensures that the trial court’s advantage is respected. The principle reflects the limits of appellate review. It prevents appellate courts from substituting their views. The court must defer to the trial court’s credibility assessment. The principle provides guidance on appellate interference in negligence cases.
