E. D. TSOKWA & ORS v. ALH. MIJINYAWA & ORS
(2014)LCN/6888(CA)
RATIO
COURT: THE FUNDAMENTALS OF WRITING A GOOD JUDGEMENT AS IT AFFECTS THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY COURTS
The fundamentals of writing a good judgment which a trial court is enjoined to adhere to, as articulated over the years by the courts of our land, and in particular, by the recent decision of the Supreme Court per Muhammad, JSC, in Ishola v. Folorunsho (2010) 6 SCNJ 151 @ 168, amongst others, comprise of:
a) Making a brief statement of the type of action/offence being adjudicated upon;
b) Setting out the claims/offence in full or in part
c) Reviewing of the evidence led;
d) Appraising/evaluating such evidence;
e) Making findings of fact therefrom;
f) Considering the legal submissions made and/or arising and making findings of law on them; and
g) Reaching a conclusion, i.e. verdict/final decision/order(s).
One of the most important yardsticks of determining a good judgment is the appraisal or evaluation of the evidence presented before the court. Without this, it becomes impossible for an appellate court to carry out its duty and responsibility of examining the decision of the court below to determine whether or not the decision is in tune with the facts and the law. It must also be comprehended that reviewing evidence is certainly different from evaluating evidence. What a court does when it reviews evidence is to re-state or re-hash briefly and concisely what the case of each party as presented before the court is. Thereafter, it becomes obligatory on the court to go further to consider the quality of the evidence, the weight to be attached to it, and in civil cases, the evidence preponderating on both sides. It is at this stage that the judge uses his imaginary scale to weigh the evidence on both sides. He must then come to an objective decision as to which side of the scale the evidence preponderates and he delivers his decision accordingly. A judge is not allowed to adopt a hop, step and jump procedure by leaping hurriedly from a review of evidence, straight on to the finishing line, (as it were), to deliver a verdict. He must step into the area where he addresses all the issues raised in the case, appraises the facts, applies the law before he gives his decision and the reasons therefore, i.e. the ratio decidendi.
It is well recognized that, as individuals, different Judges have different styles of writing judgments. Whereas some espouse brevity, others are long-winded, while others are in-between. In all these, what is of paramount importance is clarity, a proper consideration and evaluation of the facts as presented before the court, a proper application of the law to these facts, a decision, and the perception of the ordinary reasonable man that justice has been done to all the parties in the dispute. Evaluation is the dispassionate appraisal of the evidence before the court with a view to finding out which side of the imaginary scale the evidence preponderates.
In Anselem Onejeme v. Hon. (Mrs.) Eucharia Azodo & Ors (supra) @ 579 para E, Onnoghen, JCA, (as he then was) held thus: “Evaluation is different from summation of evidence. Evaluation of evidence involves a process of reasoning by which the trial court believes the evidence of one of the contending parties and disbelieves that of the other; a preference of one version to the other. On the other hand, summation is restatement of the evidence produced by parties.” See also Gatah (Nig) Ltd v. ABU (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 278) 1186 @ 1223 para H, wherein, this Court again held thus: “It needs be stressed, that a summary or restatement of evidence, is not the same thing, as evaluation of evidence which entails the assessment of evidence so as to give value or quality to it.”
In Kaydee Ventures Ltd v. Hon. Minister, FCT (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 519) 1079 @ 1104 paras A-C, the apex Court held: “These are all geared towards justifying the averments each of the parties made in his/its pleadings. After the completion of evidence and perhaps closing addresses (where necessary) by the parties, it is now the duty of the learned trial Judge to first of all put the totality of the testimony adduced by both parties on an imaginary scale, that is, he will put the evidence adduced by the plaintiff on one side of the scale and that of the defendant on the other side and weigh them together. He will then observe which is heavier not by the number of witnesses called by each party, but by the quality or probative value of the testimony of those witnesses. In determining which side is heavier, the learned trial judge will need to have regard to whether the evidence is relevant, conclusive, admissible and more probable than the one adduced by the other party. It is to be noted that any evidence that was rejected by the trial Judge should not find a resting place on that imaginary scale. The totality of the evidence should be considered in order to determine which has weight and that which carries no weight at all.” Again, in Sule v. State (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 481) 809 @ 829 paras B-C, wherein the apex Court per Ogbuagu, JSC, succinctly held thus:
“It need be stressed and this is also settled that the role of a trial court is to hear evidence, to evaluate the evidence, to believe or disbelieve a witness or witnesses, to make findings of fact based on the credibility of the witness or witnesses who testified and to decide the merits of the case based on the findings…”
Furthermore, it is absolutely the duty of a court to pronounce on every issue properly placed before it for consideration and determination before arriving at a decision. Where it fails to do so, such leads to a miscarriage of justice, apart from the fact that it breaches the right of the parties to a fair hearing. In the instant case, the lower Court’s duty to pronounce on every issue raised before it was fundamental to resolving the questions raised in the suit. A failure to do so has been characterized as a failure to perform a statutory duty. Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.
