I agree with the law that an appellate court should not interfere with the findings of fact by a trial court once the findings are based on the evidence upon the pleading of the parties. The appellate court can however interfere where the trial court failed to inter alia make findings or arrived at inconsistent findings on a crucial issue raised by the parties.
– Onnoghen JCA. Union Bank v. Akinrinmade (1999)
SHARE ON
A perverse finding is when it runs against and counter to the evidence led and the pleadings of the parties or where it has been shown that the trial judge took into consideration or account of matters which he ought not to have taken into account or shuts his eyes to the obvious. See: Akinloye v. Eyiola (1968) NWLR 92; Isah Onu and Ors v. Ibrahim Idu and Ors (2006) 6 SCNJ 23 at Pg. 45-46.
— T.S. YAKUBU, JCA. Fayose v ICN (2012) – CA/AE/58/2010
As the Respondent rightly submitted, each case must be determined upon its own peculiar circumstances as no two cases are identical; they may be similar but not identical – see Admin/Exec., of the Estate of Gen. Abacha V. Eke-Spiff & Ors. (supra).
— A.A. Augie, JCA. Elias v Ecobank (2016) – CA/L/873/2013
Now, a court in the determination of a matter before it enquires into and relies on the relevant facts led by parties before it, draws inferences from such facts and the arguments canvassed by the parties or their counsel. Judicial evidence is the means by which the facts relied upon in taking decisions are proved. Facts are proved by oral testimony of the persons who perceived them, by the production of documents and inspections of things or places. Facts can also be proved by admissions, confessions, judicial notice, presumptions and estoppel. A Judge is free to take Judicial notice of all such facts he is either called upon to or from his general knowledge of such facts or from enquiries made by him on such facts from sources to which it is proper for him to refer.
– M.D. Muhammad, J.C.A. Shona-Jason v Omega Air (2005) – CA/L/418/2000
When the appeal is predicated on the question of facts, concurrently found by the Courts below, the attitude of this Court is well settled. This Court will not interfere with those findings of facts except when appellant shows special or exceptional circumstances justifying the interference. Such special or exceptional circumstances include the showing either that there was miscarriage of justice; or a serious violation of some principles of substantive or procedural law; or that the findings of fact are perverse, in the sense that they do not at all flow from the totality of the evidence at the trial and or that the findings are unreasonable. See ENANG v. ADU (1981) 11-12 SC 25 at 42; LOKOYI v. OLOJO (1983) 8 SC 61 at 73; OJOMU v. AJAO (1983) 9 SC 22 at 53; IBODO v. ENAROFIA (1980) 5-7 SC 42; AKAYEPE v. AKAYEPE (2009) 11 NWLR (pt. 1152) 217 SC. Notwithstanding this stance of this Court, this Court is still being perpetually inundated by appeals predicated solely on concurrent findings of facts by Courts below to this Court. The connivance of legal practitioners in this regard cannot be ruled out; particularly by those desperately wanting to make up their qualifying appearances in this Court to enable them apply for the award of the privilege of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. The sooner the balance between this privilege and the congestion in, or the work load of, this Court was struck the better for this Court and those seeking to be conferred the privilege. I say no more for now.
— E. Eko, JSC. Galadima v. State (2017) – SC.70/2013
In per Nimpar, JCA. Adepoju v. State (2014) LPELR-23312(CA) “An Appellate Court would not readily interfere with findings of facts by a trial Court except it is perverse and evident on the record”.
In ODOFIN V AYOOLA (1984) LPELR 2227 (SC): “Where a Court of trial which saw and heard witnesses has come to specific findings of facts on the evidence in issues before it, an appellant Court which had no similar opportunity should refrain from coming to different finding, unless it can show that the conclusion of the trial Court was perverse, or that the conclusion would not follow from the evidence before it”.
Tobi, JSC, held that: “Relevant facts are facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction and facts which are the occasion, caused or effect, immediate or otherwise of relevant fact or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened or which afforded an opportunity from their occurrence or transaction.” See Abubakar v. Chuks (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 319 at 402 paras G-H.
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry