Findings of fact by trial court

• Pages: 673-852

673

1234. Findings of fact of lower Court.

(1) “In other words an ap-pellant who appeals against findings of fact has an up hill

task to convince the Court that Court of first instance made wrong findings of fact or

exercised his discretion wrongly. There is a presumption that the High Court judgment

is correct until set aside Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. v. C. F.A.O. (1966) 1 All N.L.R.

140, 143.” - Per Omosun, J.C.A., in Kenon v. Tekam Suit No. CA/E/247M/88;

(1989) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 121) 366 at 373.

(2) “The attitude of appellate Courts to findings of facts made by a lower Court is

well settled. It will not interfere with findings of Court of first in-stance except if it

made improper use of the opportunity of hearing and se-eing the witnesses or has

drawn wrong conclusions from accepted or proved facts which those facts do not

support or indeed has approached the determi-nation of those facts in a manner

which those facts cannot and do not in themselves support; Fashanu v. Adekoya

(1974) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt. l) 35 at 41; Omoregbe v. Edo (1971) 1 All N.L.R. 282 at

289.” - Per Omosun, J.C.A., in Kenon v. Tekam Suit No. CA/E/247M/88; (1989) 5

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 121) 366 at 373.

(83) FINDINGS OF FACT BY TRIAL COURT

1235. Attitude of appellate Courts to the findings of facts by trial Courts.

(1) “Being a finding of fact, the attitude of an appellate Court towards finding of fact

is well settled that ordinarily the appeal Court loathes disturbing finding of fact by a

lower Court unless such finding of fact was perverse or based on credibility of

witnesses Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291; Ebba. v. Ogodo (1984) 1

S.C.N.L.R. 372; Dr. Tunde Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin & Anor. (1999) 10

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 622) 290 at 532, and in Akinloye & Anor. v. Eyiyola & Ors. (1968)

N.M.L.R. 92 at 95 the Supreme Court held that - “Where a Court of trial

unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, it is not the business

of a Court of appeal to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court.” In

the instant appeal the finding of delivery date was based on the pleaded fact in the

statement of claim being a demurrer proceeding appellant is deemed to have admitted

the fact therefore I do not find the finding of fact of the delivery date of 31st January,

1996 to be perverse as appellate Court. I do not wish nor inclined to disturb this

finding as from all the circumstances of the case the finding in my view and estimation

was not perverse.” Per Onalaja, J.C.A., in G & G. Lines v. Olaleye (2000) 10

N.W.L.R (Pt. 676) 613 at 635.

(2) “The Court of Appeal should not disturb a finding of fact unless that Court is

satisfied that such finding is unsound; it is in the process of deciding whether the

finding is sound or not, that the Court of Appeal (because it does not see the witness)

is left only to examine the grounds that led to the conclusion reached by and the

669 Findings of fact by lrial Court Paras. 1234-1235

674

interferences that have been drawn from such conclusions of the trial Court.” Per

Eso, J.S.C., in Ebbba v. Ogodo & Anor. (1984) N.S.C.C. 255 at 259.

(4) “The Tribunal in its assessment and evaluation of the evidence adduced before it

in respect of Akko Local Government Area accepted the testimonies of these defence

witnesses and found as a fact that the election in that Government Area was peaceful,

free and fair. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of DW 16 DW17. DW 16

was from Tumu ward of Akko Local Government Area and also a member of A.N.P.P.

and testified among other things that it was untrue that A.N.P.P. members were

driven out from voting in that area and asserted that a voted there. Also DW 17,

from Kashere ward of Akko Local Government Area of the State testified that he

voted in that ward and that members of P.D.P. did not drive out any A.N.P.P. member

from in that ward. In its assessment and evaluation of the totality of the evidence

adduced before the Tribunal, it stated and followed the general principles for appraisal

and evaluation of evidence in civil proceedings as postulated by the Supreme Court

in the case of Mogaji v. Odofin (Supra), at page 373.” Per Ekpe, J.C.A., in Hashidu

v. Goje (2006) 2 E.P.R. 789 at 825; (2003) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 843) 352 at 390 -

391.

(5) “In Salako & Ors. v. Dosunmu (1997) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 517) 371; (1997) 7

S.C.N.J. 278 it was held that it is a wrong approach for a trial Court to make findings

of fact without assessment and evaluation of evidence placed before the learned

trial Judge. It is an established principle of law that where a Court of trial unquestionably

evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, it is not the business of a Court of

Appeal to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court.” Per Ekpe,

J.C.A., in Hashidu v. Goje (2006) 2 E.P.R. Pg. 789 at 826; (2003) 15 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 843) 352 at 391 - 392.

1236. An assertion goes to no issue where pleaded and no evidence is led to

that effect.

“Exhibit B, however, was different kettle of fish. Exhibit B was a document shrouded

in doubt for while it was in custody of appellant it has been altered to read 7/11/83

instead of the original of 5/10/83 thereon. That document as it related to appellant’s

case was discredited by the trial Judge in his evaluation of evidence because the

date thereon had been altered apparently by the appellant in whose custody it was

and who could not explain away the alternation thereon. On the other hand, it is my

view also that it could not operate in respondent’s favour in that although pleaded to

have been executed under duress, no evidence was led to that effect. That assertion

went to no issue: see Adimora v. Ajufo (supra).” - Per Achike, J.C.A., in Ikwuka

v. Anachuna Suit No. CA/E/223/86; (1996) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 424) 355 at 368.

Paras. 1235-1236 670

675

1237. Appeal Court’s attitude to findings of fact by trial Court.

(1) “This is a definite findings of fact which an appellate Court will not ordinarily

interfere with except in certain circumstances, such as where the trial Court did not

make a proper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses at the trial

or where it has drawn wrong conclusions from accepted credible evidence or it has

taken an erroneous view of the evidence adduced before it or its findings of fact are

perverse in the sense that they do not flow from the evidence accepted by it. See

Okpokiri v. Jonah (1961) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 174; (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 102 at 104-105;

Maja v. Stocco (1968) 1 All N.L.R. at 149; Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291 at

295-296 and 326-329 etc. It is clear to me that the said finding of the trial Court is

entirely without fault and need not therefore be interfered with.” - Per Iguh, J.S.C.,

in Agbabiaka v. Saibu Suit No. S.C.171/1995; (1998) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 571) 534 at

545.

(2) “A Court of Appeal does not easily disturb the findings of fact of a trial Judge

who had the singular opportunity of listening to the witnesses and watching them

perform. It is settled law, however, that such findings of facts or inferences from

time to time may be questioned in certain circumstances. See Fabumiyi & Ors. v.

Obaje & Ors. (supra), Benmax v. Austin Motor Co. Ltd. (1955) A.C. 370 and

Akinola & Ors. v. Fatoyinbo Oluwo & Ors. (1992) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 352 (1962) All

N.L.R. 224.” - Per Ogwuegbu, J.S.C., in Nneji v. Chukwu Suit No. S.C.13/1991;

(1996) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 478) 265 at 278.

(3) “The findings of the Court below as to partition are reasonably supported by the

evidence adduced. In such a situation, an appellate Court will not interfere with

those findings: See Okolo v. Uzoka (1978) 4 S.C. 77 at 86.” - Per Uwaifo, J.C.A.,

in Ntephe v. Ntephe Suit No. CA/E/210/90; (1993) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 282) 482 at

490.

(4) “Is in my view perverse. It is trite law that a Court of Appeal should not interfere

with the finding of fact of the lower Court except such findings are perverse having

been based on inadmissible evidence as in the case in hand or relevant and admissible

evidence having been rejected which in their case, has occasioned a miscarriage of

justice. See Amasa v. Kokosi & ors. (1986) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 33) 57.” - Per Onu,

J.C.A., in Ude v. Osuji Suit No. CA/E/87/87; (1990) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 151) 488 at

509-570.

(5) “The law is that the appellant Court will interfere when finding is a mere conjecture

not supported by evidence see Isaac D.O. Ejabulor v. His Highness O.B. Osha

(1990) 7 S.C.N. 3 187; (1990) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.48) 1 but in the instant appeal the

evidence of PW 1 to the effect that – “He felt disappointed when he read the report,

that a person of the calibre of the plaintiff were to be placed in a position of trust in

the future, Nigeria would be misplacing her trust”. Clearly removes the statement

671 Findings of fact by lrial Court Para. 1237