FREDRIKOV PETROLEUM SERVICES COMPANY LIMITED v. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC & ANOR
(2014) LCN/6973(CA)
RATIO
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: DUTY OF THE COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY CONTENDING PARTIES
It is trite that it is the primary duty of the trial Judge to evaluate evidence produced by the contending parties in support of their contentions, and putting them on an imaginary scale before arriving at its decision one way or the other. Not by the number of witnesses called but by the quality or probative value of the testimony of those witnesses – SHA JNR V. KWAN (2000) 1 NWLR (PT.670) 685; AYUYA & 4 ORS V. YONRIN & 3 ORS (2011) 4 NWLR 479 @ 494.
Where a Court of trial fails in its duty to properly consider the evidence before it, and the failure led it to draw wrongful conclusions for the accepted evidence, the Appellate Court is perfectly justified in evaluating and considering the whole decision in order to arrive at a just decision – WOLUCHEM V. GUDI (1981) 5 SC, 291; A-G OYO STATE v. FAIRLANCES HOTELS LTD NO. 2 (1989) 5 NWLR PT.121 AT 255 AT 285; GUINNESS NIG. LTD v. UDEANI (2000) 14 NWLR (PT.687) 387. Per RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.
APPEAL: WHETHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL MUST EMANATE FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT
The law is elementary, that Grounds of Appeal have to emanate from the proceedings in a Court and not from an issue extraneous to it. Ipso facto Grounds 2 and 3 are not Grounds that relate to or emanate from the Judgment of the lower Court. Infact they are extraneous to it – ACHEBE V. NWOSU (2003) 7 NWLR PT. 818 – 103 @ 130.
Grounds Nos. 2 and 3 in the Notice of Appeal being extraneous to the issue dealt with in the Ruling, the Appellant, rightly in my view, and as argued by the Respondent, went beyond the scope of this appeal. See MAJEKODUNMI V. NIGERIAN ARMY (2002) 16 NWLR PT.794 PG.451 AT 461 where Oguntade J.C.A observed “…it is not permissible for a Counsel to use his brief as a platform for supplying evidence which had not been called before the trial Court”
I agree with the submission of the Respondents that any attempt to consider issues 2 and 3 and indeed Grounds 2 and 3 of the Appeal would be premature. Per RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.
