DECIDED PRINCIPLE ON EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT

NNADOZIE & ORS. vs. MBAGWU(2008)1 iLAW/SC.249/2002

ISSUE: EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duties of trial and appellate court and whether conclusion reached by appellate court in re-evaluation of evidence before trial court amounts to a new case

PRINCIPLE:
"The duty of a trial judge is to evaluate the evidence before him to arrive at a decision. The duty of an appellate court, such as the Court of Appeal, is to go into the evidence evaluated by the trial judge to see whether there was any perversity in the findings, and in the course of carrying out this duty, an appellate court will also go into the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or the other. A conclusion arrived at by an appellate court on the strength of the evidence at the trial court based on analysis of the evaluation of the evidence by the trial court, cannot be said to be a new case. In the course of evaluating evidence, a court of law is entitled to make deductions here and there from the evidence before the court, and deductions which result in conclusions cannot be said to be new case. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal's conclusions were based on proper appraisal of evidence on record which did not amount to a new case, therefore the Supreme Court had no basis of interfence with its decisions." Per TOBI, JSC.(Pp.27-28, Paras.F-B)