Before I come to this, however, some prefatory remarks are imperative. It is undoubtedly settled that if there has been a proper appraisal of evidence by a trial court, a court of appeal should not embark on a fresh appraisal of the same evidence just to arrive at a “different conclusion from that reached by the trial court. Put differently, if a trial court unquestionably evaluated the evidence then it is not the business of the Court of Appeal to substitute its own views for the views of the trial court, Balogun v Agboola (1974) 10 SC 111; Woluchem v Gudi (supra). As the Supreme Court explained in Woluchem v Gudi (supra), these principles are based on sound common sense. The trial Judge has the singular advantage of seeing and observing the witnesses. He watches their demeanour, candour and -partisanship; their integrity; manner etc. He can, therefore, decide on their credibility. These advantages are normally not enjoyed by an appeal court. All it has is the printed record. It does not have the other evidence – evidence of the demeanour of the witnesses or other incidental elements that go to make up the atmosphere at the trial, see per Nnamani JSC (as he then was) at pages 52- 53.
— C.C. Nweze, JCA. Ayorinde v Ayorinde (2010) – CA/IL/45/2008