Subject Matter Index
Browse cases by legal subject matter and principles
ALL
GHANA
NIGERIA
UNITED KINGDOM
WEST AFRICA
Attitude of the appellate court in respect of evaluation of evidence by a trial court
Circumstances where an appellate court can evaluate evidence
Circumstances where an appellate court can evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to same
Condition for the evaluation of evidence
Distinction between a judge not evaluating evidence and not giving probative value to the evidence
Distinction between evaluation of evidence in civil and criminal cases
Distinction between investigation and evaluation of documentary evidence
Distinction between receipt of evidence and evaluation of evidence
Distinction between summary of evidence and evaluation of evidence
Distinction between the role of a trial court and that of an appellate court in the evaluation of evidence
Distinction in the approach to evaluation of evidence and findings of fact in a criminal and civil trial
Duty of a court when evaluating evidence
Duty of a trial court to evaluate evidence led in proof of a case
Duty of a trial judge to evaluate evidence and make specific findings of facts
Duty of a trial judge when evaluating evidence
Duty of court to consider the evidence before it and not to indulge in speculation
Duty of court where it discovers later that some pieces of the evidence earlier admitted were on facts not pleaded
Duty of the trial court to consider the totality of the evidence before the court
Duty of the trial court to evaluate documentary evidence placed before it
Duty of the trial court to evaluate evidence; how it discharges the duty
Duty of the trial court to not to embark on an investigation of the case when evaluating documentary evidence
Duty on an appellant who seeks the setting aside of a judgement on the basis of wrongful evaluation of evidence
Effect of failure by a court to properly evaluate evidence
Effect of failure by a trial court to properly evaluate evidence
Effect of failure of a tribunal to properly evaluate documentary evidence
Effect of failure of the Court of Appeal to properly evaluate evidence
Effect of failure to evaluate evidence
Factors an appellate court should take into consideration in determining if a trial court properly evaluated evidence presented before it
Factors that an appellant who complains of improper evaluation of evidence must show in order to succeed
Factors to be considered in the evaluation or assessment of probative value to be ascribed to a piece of evidence
Meaning of evaluation of evidence
Need for a trial Judge to properly evaluate the evidence of a witness
On the duty on trial court in evaluating evidence against more than one accused persons
Order of evaluating evidence
Power of an Appellate Court to evaluate documentary evidence
Presumption of the correctness of the evaluation of evidence and findings of fact of a trial court
Principles guiding the evaluation of evidence
Principles that are examined in considering a trial court's evaluation of evidence
Principles to be considered by the court in evaluating evidence
Procedure for evaluation of evidence
Proper steps to be taken by an appellate court where the lower court fails to properly evaluate evidence
Qualities which an evidence must meet in order to be upheld as a credible evidence capable of sustaining a criminal charge
Sources from which the Court draw material evidence
Sources from which the Court draws material evidence
The correct method of evaluating evidence
The duty of the court to consider plaintiff and defence evidence before passing judgment
The factors which a trial court should look out for when evaluating the testimony of a witness
The guiding principle in evaluating evidence against a dead person
The importance of proper evaluation of evidence
The most important aspect of the duty of the court in the evaluation of evidence
The position of the law where the evidence of the parties boils down to the oaths of one party and his witnesses against the oaths of the other party and his witnesses
The principle of evaluation of evidence
The principle that in evaluating the evidence of a party at a trial, it is only his sworn evidence that can be used
The principle that it is not every defect or contradiction in the evidence of a party and or his witness(s) that automatically mars that party’s case.
The principle that where a court has rejected a piece of evidence as incredible, it has no evidential value
The rule in Mogaji v. Odofin
The rule that a trial Judge must be slow to draw probabilities from evidence, especially where the accused is charged with a capital offence
The rule that every piece of evidence duly admitted in the course of proceedings must be tested for credibility, weight or cogency by the trial court
The rule that the trial court has a bounden duty to evaluate the evidence led by both sides to the dispute
What amounts to adequate consideration of evidence
What amounts to credible evidence
What a proper evaluation of evidence involves
What evaluation of evidence entails
What evaluation of evidence entails in criminal trials
What the court must consider when evaluating evidence
When a piece of evidence is conclusive
When a trial court will be said to have improperly evaluated evidence
Whether a court can evaluate evidence based on exhibits not before it
Whether a court has a duty to consider all admitted evidence
Whether a Judge is precluded from evaluating an admitted document in order to ascertain its evidential value and weight
Whether a Judge is required to cite any law in every case, particularly where it turns essentially on facts
Whether a mere recital of evidence is the same as evaluation of evidence
Whether an appellate court can evaluate documentary evidence
Whether an appellate court can evaluate evidence
Whether an appellate court can re-evaluate affidavit and documentary evidence
Whether an appellate court is required to evaluate the entire evidence on record and correct any error committed by the court below in the evaluation of the evidence before it
Whether an impression as to the credibility of a party’s case can be adopted by a trial court without testing it against the whole of the evidence of the witnesses called by the party
Whether a party who has acquiesced to not giving oral evidence or cross-examining witnesses can complain that the documents tendered were not properly evaluated
Whether a restatement or summary of evidence can take the place of evaluation of evidence
Whether a trial court can accept part of the evidence of a witness and reject the other part
Whether a trial court can begin with the evaluation of evidence of the defendant
Whether a trial court can pick and choose the evidence to be assessed
Whether a trial court has a duty to evaluate evidence where only one party led evidence
Whether documents are to be tested in open court before a tribunal can evaluate them
Whether issues of evaluation of evidence are issues of customary law
Whether it is enough for a judge to say "I believe" or "I do not believe a witness" without stating reasons
Whether it is necessarily the credibility of one or two witnesses that may determine the case
Whether it is proper for a trial judge to evaluate the facts contained in the pleadings and depositions of a party together with the evidence of the opposing party
Whether it is sufficient for a court to say 'I believe' when evaluating evidence
Whether it is the duty of an appellate court to re-evaluate the evidence of witnesses
Whether sentiment or sympathy override the rules of evidence
Whether strictness in evaluating evidence is required where parties are a man and wife or are in an amorous relationship
Whether the belief or disbelief of evidence of parties depends upon the number of witnesses who gave evidence in the court
Whether the court can pick and choose which portion of the evidence of prosecution witness to believe
Whether the court can scrounge for evidence that was not tested in open court
Whether the courts can act on instinct
Whether the court should pronounce on every document tendered before it even where such document has no probative value
Whether the court while evaluating evidence can draw inferences and make conclusions therefrom; whether such inferences and conclusions amount to setting up a different case for the party
Whether the duty of an appellate court to evaluate evidence when necessary extends to assessment of credibility of witnesses
Whether the evaluation of evidence in a criminal trial is based on the quantity of witnesses
Whether the evaluation of evidence is an exercise of the court's discretion
Whether the evaluation of evidence is the exclusive preserve of the trial court
Whether the order in which a trial judge considers the evidence is a matter of style
Whether there can be a finding of fact where there is no evaluation of evidence
Whether there can be proper evaluation of evidence where some of the relevant evidence in the case was not considered in arriving at the judgment
Whether there is a fixed mode of evaluating evidence
Whether there is a particular procedure to be followed in assessing evidence
Whether the relationship between witnesses and parties is examined by the court is evaluated by the court
Whether the Supreme Court can evaluate documentary evidence
Whether the trial court can rely on evidence not challenged or contradicted or rendered inadmissible by any law
Whether the trial court is obliged to accord probative value to every piece of evidence
Whether the trial court is to first consider evidence led by the plaintiff before considering that led by the defence
Whether trial judge can use such expressions as "I believe or disbelieve" or "I am satisfied" without the benefit of a proper evaluation
Whose duty is it to evaluate evidence in a court-martial?
Whose duty it is to evaluate evidence
Access More on judy.legal
Get related cases, follow principles for updates, and access AI-powered research.
Explore judy.legal