Notifications
Clear all

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY A TRIAL COURT

 

 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

“The settled legal position is that where a trial court unquestionably evaluates and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of an appellate court to substitute its views for the view of the trial court except where the findings of facts made by the trial court do not flow from the evidence or where the findings are perverse. See Woluchem vs. Gudi (1981) 5 SC 291 at 320, Edjekpo vs. Osia (2007) LPELR (1014) 1 46-47 and Fasikun II vs. Oluronke II (1999) LPELR (1248) 1 at 47-48. The law is that the conclusion of the trial court on the facts is presumed to be correct, so that presumption must be displaced by the person seeking to upset the judgment on the facts: Balogun vs. Agboola (1974) 1 ALL NLR (PT 2) 66, Ebolor vs. Osayande (1992) LPELR (8053) 1 at 43 and Oni vs. Johnson (2015) LPELR (24545) 1 at 14. PER U.A.OGAKWU,J.C.A, in

Samuel Etuk v Heritage Bank PLC LER [2018]CA/L/05/2010 https://legalpediaonline.com/samuel-etuk-v-heritage-bank-plc/


Quote
Share: