Asking for the indulgence of court

• Pages: 298-298

298

not made serious efforts to consider numerous cases upon the subject of the

admission of fresh evidence, new evidence or additional evidence on appeal.

It must be appreciated that the Court of Appeal is wholly an appellate Court and as

an appellate Court, appeals are argued before it on the said record of proceedings

forwarded to it by the High Court. However, under Order 1 rule 20(3) of the Court

of Appeal rules, 1981 the Court has power to admit further evidence during the

hearing of an appeal in exceptional cases on special grounds.” As I said above, in

the instant case, it has not been shown that exceptional or special grounds exist for

the admission of the document, there was even no formal application to admit the

document in evidence, rather the learned Senior Advocate threw the document to

the Court and insisted without any reason that it be used. The approach of the

learned counsel for the appellant to this matter is, in my view, totally inexplicable,

misconceived and has no legal backing, I accordingly rule that the document is

inadmissible and I shall ignore it completely in my consideration of the appeal.” -

Per Musdpaher, J.C.A., in Iredia v. First Bank Suit No. CA/B/212/88; (1991) 3

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 182) 751 at 764-765.

(33) ASKING FOR THE INDULGENCE OF COURT

528. Party’s duty when asking for indulgence.

“One who asks the Court to grant him indulgence must show something which

entitles him to the exercise of it: Finding v. Finding (1939) 2 All E.R. 173 at

177.” - Per Omosun, J.C.A., in Ukwu v. Bunge Suit No. CA/B/143M/90; (1991)

3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 182) at 677 at 689.

(34) ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT TO FINDINGS OF FACT BY

TRIAL COURT

529. Attitude of Appellate Court of findings of fact by trial Court.

“It is settled law that the duty of appraising evidence and ascribing values to it, is

pre-eminetly that of the trial Court who saw and heard the witnesses and that an

appellate Court may not disturb a finding or conclusion in a judgment simply because

it would have come to a different finding or conclusions on the facts. An appellate

Court may, however, interfere with such conclusion or finding at a trial Court if it

is satisfied (1) that the finding was perverse and cannot be supported having regard

to the evidence or (ii) that the finding is an inference from established facts, so

that the appeal Court is in as vantage a position as the trial Court to draw its own

conclusion, or (iii) that the trial Court applied wrong principles of law, see Woluchem

v. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291 at 326: Nwobodo v. Chief Federal Electoral Officer

(1984) 1 S.C. 1 at 53.” Per Tabai, J.C.A., in Odali v. Ahmadu (1999) 5 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 148) 22 at 30.

Paras. 527-529