It is trite law that where the findings of trial court and indeed the concurrent findings of the Judge and the Court of Appeal are perverse, this court can interfere and give the correct findings as the evidence in the record show. See Ajeigbe vs. Odedina (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 72) 584; Okonkwo vs. Okolo (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 79) 632; lbhafidon vs. 1gbinosun (2001) FWLR (pt. 49) 1426, (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 716) 653.
— N. Tobi, JSC. Ezennah v Atta (2004) – SC.226/2000
SHARE ON
An appellate court in its primary role in considering a judgment on appeal in a civil case in which the finding or non-finding of facts is questioned will seek to know:- The evidence before the trial court. Whether it accepted or rejected any evidence upon the correct perception. Whether it correctly approached the assessment of the evidence before it and placed the right probative value on it. Whether it used the imaginary scale of justice to weigh the evidence on either side and Whether it appreciated upon the preponderance of evidence which side of the scale weighed having regard to the burden of proof.
– ADEKEYE JCA. Anyafulu v. Agazie (2005)
The law is settled that on issues of facts, evaluation of evidence and the credibility of witnesses are matters within the exclusive competence and domain of the trial Court. See CHIEF FRANK EBA v. CHIEF WARRI OGODO & ANOR. (1984) 12 SC 133 at 176; DANIEL SUGH v. THE STATE (1988) NWLR (pt.77) 475. Where the trial Court finds a witness credible and believable, unless the appellant shows evidence that renders that stance perverse the appellate Court rarely interferes with that finding.
— E. Eko, JSC. Kekong v State (2017) – SC.884/2014
In per Nimpar, JCA. Adepoju v. State (2014) LPELR-23312(CA) “An Appellate Court would not readily interfere with findings of facts by a trial Court except it is perverse and evident on the record”.
In ODOFIN V AYOOLA (1984) LPELR 2227 (SC): “Where a Court of trial which saw and heard witnesses has come to specific findings of facts on the evidence in issues before it, an appellant Court which had no similar opportunity should refrain from coming to different finding, unless it can show that the conclusion of the trial Court was perverse, or that the conclusion would not follow from the evidence before it”.
The attitude of this Court to concurrent findings of fact, is that it would not usually interfere with such findings unless they are shown to be perverse, not based on the evidence before the Court or where there has been an error of law or error in procedure which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The rationale for this position was eloquently stated by His Lordship, Belgore, JSC (as he then was) in Bamgboye v. Olarewaju (1991) LPELR 745 SC as follows: “Once a Court of trial has made a finding of fact, it is no more within the competence of the appellate Court to interfere with those findings except in certain circumstances. The real reason behind this attitude of appellate Courts is that the Court hearing the appeal is at a disadvantage as to the demeanour of witnesses in the lower Court as they were not seen and heard by the appellate Court. It is not right for the appellate Court to substitute its own eyes and ears for those of the trial Court which physically saw the witnesses and heard them and thus able to form an opinion as to what weight he place on their evidence…”
– Abdu Aboki JSC. Junaidu v. State (2021)
Whichever is the case, it is important to state and emphasize that in a case of the nature before us, Counsel should have studied the facts of the case very well. Facts are the springboard of law. It is the facts of the case that determine the appropriate remedy.
— I.C. Pats Acholonu, JSC. Abdulhamid v Akar & Anor. (2006) – S.C. 240/2001
The trial Tribunal and the court below have arrived at concurrent findings of fact and the attitude of the Supreme Court is replete in a number of judicial authorities which is that except there is established miscarriage of justice or violation of some principle of law or procedure or the findings are perverse the Supreme Court will not disturb such findings. See ADAKU AMADE V. EDWARD NWOSU (1992) 6 SCNJ 59. ONWUJUBA V. OBIENU (1991) 4 NWLR (PART 188) 16; OGUNDIYAN V. STATE (1991) 3 NWLR (PART 181) 519; IYARO V. THE STATE 1 NWLR (PART 69) 256. The list is indeed inexhaustive. I do not find the findings of fact bedeviled by any of these lapses.
— Alaoga, JSC. Akeredolu v. Mimiko (2013) – SC. 352/2013
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry