STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

FINDINGS OF FACT WILL NOT BE ORDINARILY DISTURBED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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”.

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

finding of fact

APPEAL COURT WILL REVERSE WRONG FINDINGS OF FACT

It is true that the Court of Appeal will be reluctant to upset the findings of fact of a trial court but where as in this case the learned trial court draws wrong conclusions from the totality of the evidence before it, the Court of Appeal will and in fact has a duty to reverse...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

TWO TYPES OF FINDING OF FACTS – WHEN APPEAL COURT CAN INTERFERE

In a trial, there are generally two sets of findings of facts: A finding of fact may be based on the credibility of witnesses or may be informed from other facts proved before the trial court. Where a witness gives direct evidence that is the evidence of the facts in issue as seen, heard or...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

APPRAISAL OF FACT

It is settled law that the appraisal of facts is the duty of the trial Judge and the Appellant court will only intervene when the finding is perverse or wrongly made. – Nwodo, JCA. OLAM v. Intercontinental Bank (2009) Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

RATIONALE FOR UPHOLDING CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT

The attitude of this Court to concurrent findings of fact, is that it would not usually interfere with such findings unless they are shown to be perverse, not based on the evidence before the Court or where there has been an error of law or error in procedure which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice....

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

MEANING OF FACTS IN ISSUE

Facts in issue, as defined in Section 258 of the Evidence Act 2011: Includes any fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follows. A particular fact can only be...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WILL COURT INTERFERE IN FINDINGS OF FACT

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...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

No more related dictum to show.