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

 

Yinka Bright
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 114
04/09/2019 9:09 pm  

“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:
Views All Time
Views All Time
288924
Views Today
Views Today
68