STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

IT IS THE PRIMARY DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

There is no doubt that the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value thereto are the primary duties of the trial court, which had the singular opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses testify and an appellate court would ordinarily not interfere. It is also trite that this court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts, unless it is shown that the findings are perverse, or not based on a proper and dispassionate appraisal of the evidence, or that there is an error, either of law or fact, which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. See Ogoala v. The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 509, (1991) 3 SCNJ 61; Saleh v. BON Ltd (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 976) 316 at 329 – 330 – C; Agbaje v. Fashola (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 443) 1302, (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1082) 90 at 153- E.

— Kekere-Ekun, JSC. Nyesom v. Peterside (SC.1002/2015 (REASONS), 12 Feb 2016)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

evaluation

TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF EVALUATING EVIDENCE

It is a basic principle of law that the evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of a court of trial which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses while they testified before it. The trial court has the exclusive jurisdiction on matters of appraising evidence and ascribing probative value to the evidence of witnesses whom it had the opportunity of seeing, hearing and observing while in the witness box. Where a court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts and arrives at a conclusion on the credible evidence, the appellate court will not interfere with such findings of fact nor is it the business of such appellate court to substitute its own views of the facts for those of the trial court. What the appellate court ought to do is to scrutinise the record carefully and find out whether there is evidence on which the trial court could have acted. Once there is such evidence on record from which the trial court arrived at its findings of fact, the appellate court cannot interfere with such findings. See: Mufutau Bakare v. The State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.52) 579: Ogundiyan v. The State (1991) 3NWLR (Pt. 181) 519: Akpagbue v. Ogu (1976) 6 SC 63; Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 SC 72: Amadi v. Nwosu (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 273 at 280 etc.

— Iguh, JSC. Oguonzee v State (1998) – SC.131/97

Was this dictum helpful?

NOT THE DUTY OF APPEAL COURT TO RE-EVALUATE FACT

Generally, the duties of an appellate court does not involve re-evaluation of the evidence of witnesses. An appellate court may only interfere when the findings are perverse or wrong because of violation of some principles of law or procedure.

– Ogunwumiju JCA. NBC v. Olarewaju (2006) – CA/IL/43/2004

Was this dictum helpful?

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE REMAINS EXCLUSIVE PRESERVE OF TRIAL COURT

The settled principle of law is that it is the trial court which alone has the primary function of fully considering the totality of evidence placed before it, ascribe probative value to it. Put same on the imaginary scale of justice to determine the party in whose favour the balance tilts, make the necessary findings of facts flowing therefrom, apply the relevant law to the findings and come to the logical conclusion. The evaluation of evidence remains the exclusive preserve of the trial Court because of the its singular opportunity of hearing and watching the demeanour of witnesses as they testify and thus the court best suited to assess their credibility of a witness an appellate court would not ordinarily interfere.

— F.F. Tabai, JSC. Mini Lodge v. Ngei (2009) – SC.231/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

FOR AN EVIDENCE TO BE RELIED UPON, IT MUST HAVE COGENCY OR PROBATIVE VALUE

The law does not permit evidence which is of no probative value to be relied upon by a party, nor to be acted upon by the court, to support a claim. It is an important aspect of civil procedure that for evidence to be considered useful and which a court can act upon, there are certain basic qualities it must possess. The first consideration is usually the double requirement of relevancy and admissibility. But in essence they can be separated. The evidence must be relevant to a fact in issue, or to any fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue, or relevant to a fact which is inconsistent to any fact in issue or to a fact which by itself or in connection with any other fact makes the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue probable or improbable. S.7 & 12 Evidence Act. It must be admissible having regard to the facts pleaded and if no law or rule precludes its admission: see Emegokwue v. Okadigbo(1973) 4 SC 113; Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (PU9) 799. It must have credibility or cogency thereby enabling the Judge to ascribe some probative value to it having regard to its nature and what it is intended to establish: Misr (Nig.) Ltd. v.Ibrahim (1974) 5 SC 55 at 62; Aikhionbare v. Omoregie (1976) 12 SC 11 at 27. I have had to state the above because Exhibit V neither has cogency nor any probative value which can be ascribed to it.

Rockonoh v. NTP (2001) – SC.71/1995

Was this dictum helpful?

CASES SHOULD BE EXAMINED ON MERIT

Every effort must painstakingly be made to do justice. A snappy short cut decision bereft of an examination of the merits of the case settles nothing.

– Gumel, JCA. Ehanire v. Erhunmwuse (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE IS PRIMARY FUNCTION OF TRIAL JUDGE

The evaluation and ascription of probative value are primary functions of the trial court who saw and watched the demeanour of the witnesses who testified at the trial. It is not proper for an appellate court to interfere where the trial court has properly discharged its functions in relation thereto. This appeal court will not interfere with findings of fact where there is sufficient evidence backed by the pleadings in support of such findings and where no substantial error is apparent on the record such as a miscarriage of justice or violation of some principle of law or procedure.

– Musdapher, JSC. Atta v. Ezeanah (2000)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.