Finding of Fact

This Court has repeatedly stated that the appellate court should not substitute its own views of the facts for those of the lower court when it is clear that that lower court has arrived at its findings after a proper appraisal of the evidence.

Abdul Majeed Nasiru V. Commissioner Of Police LGC(1/2/1980) D

It is settled that findings on primary facts are matters within the province of a trial Court. There is a rebuttable presumption that its findings and conclusions on facts are correct, therefore, such findings are accorded due respect in appellate Courts – see Ibafidon V. Igbinosun (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 716) 653 SC, wherein this Court, per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, stated as follows –
It is a well-established principle that an appellate Court will very rarely, if at all, interfere with the findings of facts made by the trial Court. This is because such findings of fact enjoy the privilege of passing through the furnace of acrimonious cross-examination, the tooth comb scrutiny of the observation of the witnesses reactions and assessment of the veracity of their testimony. Accordingly, such findings ought to be accorded due respect in appellate Courts, which did not have the advantage of the trial Judge.

The term "finding of fact means a determination of a fact by the Court, averred by one party and denied by the other and founded on evidence in a case – Black's Law Dictionary: 6th Ed. See also Fointrades Ltd. V. Universal Association Co. Ltd. (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt 770) 699, wherein it was held that although any affirmation of a fact embodied in a Judgment may loosely be referred to as a finding on that fact, the term "finding of fact is more appropriately used to describe an affirmation of fact made after considering evidence. Thus, there is a difference between reviewing facts of a case and making findings of fact. The findings of fact come after the evaluation of the evidence.