Appellate Interference with Findings of a Lower Court: The Guiding Principle in Ojukwu v. Obasanjo

By P.L. Osakwe

■ Introduction

The appellate process is not designed to be a rehearing of the entire case but a legal mechanism for correcting errors made by a lower court. In Ojukwu v. Obasanjo (2004) FWLR (Pt. 222) 1666 at 1705, paras. E–H, the Nigerian Court of Appeal restated a time-honoured principle: an appellate court will not interfere with the judgment of a lower court unless it is demonstrated that the lower court erred in its evaluation of facts or misapplied the law to facts that were otherwise properly found.

This position underscores judicial restraint, respect for the trial court’s role, and the importance of factual stability in litigation.

■ The Legal Principle Restated

The court held that:

" An appellate court would not intervene with the judgment of the court below except it is shown that the court fell into error in its evaluation of the facts or applied the law erroneously to findings of facts which were properly made".

This principle operates on two distinct but related grounds:

1. Error in Evaluation of Facts: The appellate court will intervene where the trial judge’s assessment of evidence is plainly wrong, perverse, or unsupported by the record.

2. Error in Application of the Law: Even where factual findings are correct, interference will occur if the law was wrongly applied to those facts, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

■ Rationale for the Rule

The doctrine flows from the recognition that trial courts are in a privileged position to assess witnesses, observe demeanour, and resolve factual conflicts. They are “fact-finders” in the judicial hierarchy. Appellate courts, by contrast, work primarily with the cold record, without the benefit of live testimony. Interference is therefore justified only where an error is clear and material.

This approach:

■ Preserves judicial economy by preventing unnecessary relitigation of facts.
■ Protects the integrity of trials by respecting the trial judge’s firsthand observation.
■ Ensures appellate courts focus on correcting substantial errors, not substituting their own views.

■ Implications for Litigants and Counsel

For practitioners, the Ojukwu v. Obasanjo rule has strategic consequences:

1. Grounds of Appeal Must Be Precise: Counsel must pinpoint the exact factual or legal error and show how it materially affected the judgment.

2. Not Every Disagreement Warrants Appeal: Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome is not enough; there must be demonstrable error.

3. Record-Based Advocacy:Since appellate courts rely heavily on the trial record, meticulous preparation at the trial stage is crucial for any possible appeal.

■ Conclusion

Ojukwu v. Obasanjo is more than just a political or electoral dispute; it is a reaffirmation of a core appellate doctrine in Nigerian jurisprudence. By limiting interference to cases of factual mis-evaluation or legal misapplication, the courts maintain a delicate balance between error correction and respect for the trial process.

In the words of the Court of Appeal, appellate jurisdiction is not a licence for a “second trial,” but a safeguard to ensure justice where the lower court has clearly strayed.