Findings of fact by lower courts

• Pages: 671-673

671

by both Courts below as unsubstantiated. I need only add that the appellant did not

appeal against these concurrent findings in respect of Exhibit M. In such a situation,

they remain final and binding until set aside on appeal by a competent Court. See

Chuwkwunta v. Chukwu (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 341; Grafton Isaacs v. Emary

Roberton (1948) 3 W.L.R. 705 at 709. Besides, every judgment is conclusive proof,

as against parties and privies, of facts directly in issue in the case and actually

decided by the Court unless evidence was admitted in the action in which the judgment

was delivered which is excluded in the action in which that judgment is intended to

be proved. See section 53 of the Evidence Act and Timitimi and others v. Chief

Amabebe and others (1953) 14 W.A.C.A. 374. The position, therefore, is that the

concurrent findings of both the trial Court and the Court below to the effect that

Exhibit M is spurious and worthless, not having been appealed against remain valid

and conclusive as between the parties hereto. The appellant can therefore be said

to have woefully failed to establish his claim of title to the land in dispute. This is as

against the respondent’s possession of the land in dispute and title thereto which both

the trial Court and the Court below found established. Accordingly the one issue for

consideration in this appeal must be resolved in favour of the respondent.” - Per

Iguh, J.S.C., in Iseru v. Catholic Bishop Warri Dioceses Suit No. S.C. 71/1996;

(1997) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 495) 503 at 529.

(82) FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS

1231. Appellate Court’s attitude to findings of fact by lower Court.

(1) “The Court of Appeal has always maintained the attitude that it will not ordinarily

disturb the judgment of a lower Court that is based on findings of fact which are

supported by the evidence accepted by the Court. This is the attitude of the Supreme

Court as well. See Salami v. Oke (1987) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 63) 1; Anyanwu v. Mbara

(1992) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 242) 386; Akpagbue v. Ogu (1976) 6 S.C. 63; Ekretsu v.

Oyobebere (1992) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 266) 438; Sele v. State (1993) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

269) 276; Incar Nigeria Ltd. v. Adegboye (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 8) 453.” - Per

Rowland, J.C.A., in Chukwu v. Ossai Suit No. CA/E/50/88; (1994) 4 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 339) 461 at 474.

(2) “This finding of fact is borne out from the evidence. I therefore hold that the

evidence is not perverse, as an appellate Court there is no legal basis to disturb this

finding of Court.” - Per Onalaja, J.C.A., in Ezeji v. Ike Suit No. S.C. CA/PH/87/93;

(1997) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.486) 206 at 221.

(3) “The Court of Appeal sees and reads the record of appeal but would certainly

not understand the mood of the Court below. This is why the Court of Appeal is

cautious in interfering with the finding of facts by the Court below while exercising

667 Findings of fact by lower Courts Paras. 1230-1231