BOLADE DAVID OLADAPO v. STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC & ANOR
(2014)LCN/6874(CA)
RATIO
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: WHETHER THE COURT WOULD ENGAGED IN REEVALUATION OF EVIDENCE OF THE TRIAL COURT
The law is fixed as if in concrete that this Court cannot embark on a re-evaluation of the evidence and thereby arrive at a different conclusion from that of the trial Court because an Appellate Court is not permitted to inquire into disputes but to inquire into ways the disputes have been tried and settled – see A.G. Ekiti State V. Daramola (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 827) 104 SC. It is also settled that there is a rebuttable presumption that its findings and conclusions on facts are correct. The duty of this Court to interfere with improper findings or correct any erroneous conclusions would only arise where it fails to properly examine and evaluate the evidence before the Court – see Sanni v. State (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 285) 99 & Nwankwoala V. State (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 940) 637. In this case, the lower Court did a good job of evaluating the evidence before it, and the presumption that its findings and conclusions on the fact are correct have not been rebutted in any way by the Appellant.
But that is not all; he has also argued that the lower Court erred when it held that his investment continued to run until the date of Judgment for not complying with the said procedure for redemption notwithstanding Exhibit D. He canvassed more or less the same arguments, and the gist of it, relying on Abubakar & 2 Ors v. Nasamu & 5 Ors (2011) 11 – 12 SC (Pt. 1) 1, Oladiga Sanusi v. Ameyogun (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 527. He also cited Nyanwu v. Uzowuaka (2009) 6 – 7 SC (Pt. 2) 44, Oladeji v Nigeria Breweries (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 357) 837, Omega Bank Plc v. OBC Ltd. (2005) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 49, Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 6 SC 81, Ezemba v. Ibeneme & Anor. (2004) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 45, Civil Design Const Nig. Ltd v SCOA (2007) 2 SC 195 – Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.
