"Obviously there was no evaluation of the affidavit evidence at all by the trial chief judge and this is one classical case where the appellate Court can interfere because the findings or order of the Court is perverse since we cannot see where it originated. There is no root or foundation to ground the order. Evaluation of evidence is a critical stage in the adjudication of disputes, it simply involves the reviewing and analyzing of the evidence presented in a matter with a view to ascribing value or quality towards a decision. It is therefore the primary duty of the trial Court to evaluate evidence led and ascribe probative value to it and the same applies to affidavit evidence.
This Court in the case of BOB v. AKPAN (2009) LPELR-8519 (CA) held thus: "Affidavit evidence is not sacrosanct, in that it is not above evaluation by the Court. Like oral evidence a Court is entitled to evaluate affidavit evidence in order to ensure its veracity and or authenticity. Thus the Court cannot be blinded to lies even in uncontradicted affidavit evidence." See also DR. N. E OKOYE & ANOR v. CENTRE POINT MERCHANT BANK LTD (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 441) 810 at 934. Agreed that there are instances that affidavit evidence tell lies but even at that the trial Court should say so in clear terms because the Court cannot be blinded as to follow the lies. When there are conflicts in affidavit evidence on a material issue, the legal position is clear, the Court cannot resolve such conflict except by evaluating the conflicting evidence in order to achieve the resolution of the conflict and the duty of the Court in such instances, is to ensure that oral evidence is called and heard from the parties, see KAMARU GBADEBO SHITTU v. KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC (2014) LPELR-23820 (CA). Such material conflicts must be attended to and not glossed over by the Court. The Court must evaluate the evidence to arrive at a decision, see G.M.O.N. & CO. LTD v. AKPUTA (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1200) 443 S.C.
The trial Court failed in that duty, and therefore the order drawn up is perverse and I find support in the case of ADIELE IHUNWO v. JOHNSON IHUNWO & ORS (2013) LPELR-20084 (SC) where it held thus: "It is not only when there is no evidence to support a decision that the decision can be held perverse. Absence of proper evaluation of evidence and the failure to draw appropriate inference from them can also amount to perversity where the inference is so clear that no reasonable tribunal would fail to draw them or where the inference drawn by the trial Judge does not follow from the evidence or conclusions that should reasonably follow from the finding of fact he made." The failure to evaluate evidence will not only vitiate the findings of such a Court but will also give the appellate Court authority to step in to evaluate and make proper findings particularly where the evidence does not involve the oral testimony of witnesses or where the findings of fact do not depend on the credibility of witnesses. See the case of OKOMALU v. AKINBODE (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 985) 338; MALAM YUSUF JIMOH & ORS v. MALLAM KARIMU AKANDE & ANOR (2009) 1 SCM 34; FSB INTERNATIONAL BANK v. IMANO (NIG.) (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 679) 626 and HALIMA HASSAN TUKUR v. GARBA UMAR UBA (2012) LPELR-9337 (SC)."
Per NIMPAR, J.C.A. IN IHEAKAM v. FBN CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43545(CA)
