Findings of fact of trial court

• Pages: 649-650

649

preceding the making of It.” - Per Ndoma-Egba, J.C.A., in Ayu. v. Madugu Suit

No. CA/J/51/89; (1991) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.171) 92 at 99.

(78) FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURT

1208. Appellate Court’s attitude to findings of trial Court on demeanour

of witnesses and evaluation of evidence.

(1) “The intervention of the Court below with the decision of the trial Court in

the instant case is founded on the established principle of law that evaluation of

evidence is the duty of the trial Court that saw the witnesses but in circumstances

where the findings of fact of the trial Court is not borne out of the evidence

before that Court, the Court of Appeal will be called upon to re-assess such

evidence. See Mrs. Alero Jadesimi v. Adolo Okotie-Eboh (1986) 1 N.W.L.R.

(Pt.16) 264; Chief O. Fabumiyi & Anor. v. Fatumo T. Obaje & Anor.(1968)

N.M.L.R. 242 at 243 and Atanda v. Ajani (189) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 511 at 539.”

- Per Onu, J.S.C., in Kamalu v. Umunna Suit No. S.C.241/1991; (1997) 5

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 505) 321 at 337.

(2) “It is settled law that where the area of findings, as in the instant case, is

based on the demeanour of witnesses and credibility thereof, the trial Court is

master and the Court of Appeal must not substitute its views for those of the trial

Court. See Chief Frank Ebba & Ors. v. Chief Warri Ogodo & Ors. (1984) 4

S.C. 84 (1984) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 372; Motunwase v. Sorungbe (1988) 5 N.W.L.R.

(Pt.92) 90; Akpapkunas & Ors. v. Obi Nzeka II (1983) 2 S.C.N.L.R. 1 and

Nzekwu v.Nzekwu (1989) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 104) 373 at 393. However, where

the issues relate to the evaluation of evidence of witnesses, oral or documentary,

the Court of Appeal is in as much as a favourable position as the Court of trial.

See Mogaji v. Odofin & Ors. (1978) 4 S.C. 91 at 94 and Anyaoke v. Adi

(1986) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.31) 731 at 742. - Per Onu, J.S.C in Kamalu v. Umunna

Suit No.S.C.241/1991; (1997) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 505) 321 at 333.

1209. Attitude of appellate Court to findings of fact by Area Court.

(1) “The Area Court which is presumed to know the custom of the area in which the

land adjudicated upon is situated after a thorough appraisal and evaluation of the

evidence adduced at the trial following a visit to the locus in quo, arrived at a sound

decision which ought not, in my view, to be lightly interfered with. Thus, in the case

on appeal, the High Court was palpably wrong to have disturbed the decision of the

trial Area Court which with the decision of the Court of Appeal, constitute concurrent

findings of fact by the two Courts. This is moreso, when those decisions have not

been shown to be perverse or shown to be in breach of any rule of law, substantive

or procedural as to amount to a miscarriage of justice. See Mogo Chinwendu v.

Nwanegbo Mbamali (1980) 3-4 S.C. 31; Lokoyi v. Olojo (1983) 2 S.C.N.L.R.

645 Findings of fact of trial Court Paras. 1207-1209