Findings of fact by appeal court

• Pages: 652-671

652

(2) “Indeed, findings of fact are matters peculiarly within the province of and reserved

for the trial Court. See Chief Patrick Abusomwan v. Mercantile Bank of Nigeria

Ltd. (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 60) 196 at 207 208; Military Governor of Western

State v. Afolabi Laniba & Anor. (1974) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt. 2) 179; Ebba v. Ogodo

(1984) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 372; (1984) 4 S.C. 84; Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291 at

309; Shell B.P. Development of Nigeria v. His Highness Pere Cole & Ors. (1978)

3 S.C. 183 and Ogundulu v. Philips and Ors. (1973) 2 S.C.71 at 80. In the instant

case where the learned trial Judge, rightly, in my view, summarised and evaluated

the evidence of the respondent and the appellants and the learned Justices of the

Court below upheld the decision arrived at therein by him, I see no reason to interfere

with the concurrent findings, the same not having been shown to be perverse.” –

Per Onu, J.S.C., in Osho v. Ape Suit No. S.C. 202/1993; (1998) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

562) 492 at 510.

1213. Distinction between finding of fact and review of evidence.

“A finding of fact by the lower Court which is an inference drawn from certain facts

is quite different from the evidence, of a witness as recounted by the lower Court.”

- Per Edozie, J.C.A., in Eze v. George Suit No. CA/E/394/86; (1993) 2 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 273) 86 at 99.

(81) FINDINGS OF FACT BY APPEAL COURT

1214. Appellate Court’s attitude to evaluation evidence and findings of fact

by trial Court.

(1) “It is a basic principle of law that the evaluation of evidence and the ascription of

probation 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 scrutinize 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 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 52) 579; Ogundiyan v.

The State (1991) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 181) 519; Akpagbue v. Ogu (1976) 6 SC 63;

Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 S.C. 72; Amadi v. Nwosu Suit No. S.C. 14/1989; (1992)

5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 241) 273 at 280 etc. I will now examine the findings of fact of the

learned trial Judge as affirmed by the Court below which findings are now under

Paras. 1212-1214 648

653

attack.” - Per Iguh, J.S.C., in Oguonzee v. State Suit No. S.C. 131/97; (1998) 5

N.W.L.R. (Pt.551) 521 at 543-544.

(2) “The laid down and followed principle of law is that evaluation of evidence and

ascription of probative value to it are the primary functions of the trial Court that

saw, heard and duly assessed the witness. When such functions are duly and correctly

discharged by the trial Court, an appellate Court has no business substituting its own

views for that of the trial Court. See: Akinloye & Anor. v. Eyiyola & Ors. (1968)

N.M.L.R. 92 and Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291.The duty of the appellate

Court is to ascertain whether or not there is evidence upon which the trial Court

acted, and once there is such evidence the appellate Court must not interfere with

the trial Court’s decision. See: Akpagbue v. Ogu (1976) 6 S.C. 63; Joshua Ogunleye

v. Babatayo Oni (1990) All N.L.R 341; (1990) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt .135) 745 and

Tambani Majamma v. The State (1964) All NLR 205. However, an appellate Court

may interfere with the findings of fact of a trial Court where the latter failed to

properly evaluate the evidence or make a proper use of the opportunity of seeing or

hearing the witness at the trial or where it has drawn wrong conclusions from the

accepted or where its findings are shown to be perverse. See; Ojo v. Governor,

Oyo State (1989) 1N.W.L.R. (Pt. 95) 1; Eholor v. Osayande (1992) 6 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 249) 524.” - Per Wali, J.S.C., in Bashaya v. State Suit No. S.C. 131/97; (1998)

5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 550) 351 at 370.

(3) “It is not open to dispute, indeed it is trite law, that the duty of the trial Court is to

hear, evaluate the evidence, watch the demeanor of the witness and arrive at a

conclusion: See: Ajadi v. Olarenwaju (1969) 1 All N.L.R. 382; Fatoyinbo v. Williams

(1956) S.C.N.L.R. 274; (1956) 1 F.S.C. 87; Okpiri v. Jonah (1961) 1 S.C.N.L.R.

174; (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 102 at 104 and Akibu v. Opaleye (1974) 1 All N.L.R.

(Pt.2) 344.” - Per Onu J.S.C., Oguonzee v. State Suit No. S.C. 31/97; (1998)

5N.W.L.R. (Pt. 551) 552 at 559.

(4) “It is trite law that the issue of credibility of a witness is solely within the province

of the trial Court which saw and heard the witness testify and that it is not the duty

of an appellate Court to reverse the findings of fact of a trial Court unless they are

shown to be perverse or unjustified. See: Bakare v. The State (1987) 1 N.W.L.R.

(Pt.52) 579; Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 S.C. 72; Fabumiyi Anor. v. Obaje &

Anor. (1968) N.M.L.R. 242.” - Per Kutigi, J.S.C., in Oguonzee v. State Suit No.

S.C. 31/97; (1998) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 551) 521 at 557.

(5) “While it is normally the prerogative of the trial Court to admit, assess and consider

evidence, an appeal Court can, in suitable circumstances, such as where the findings

of the trial Court were perverse or the use made of a document goes far beyond its

evidential value, particularly in respect of documentary evidence, reconsider and

649 Findings of fact by appeal Court Para. 1214