“In taking a view point on which position, whether of the appellants or the respondents should be gone along with, the first port of call in my humble opinion is the Court below where that Court per Fabiyi JCA (as he then was) anchoring the judgment of the Court held that construing the judgment of a Customary Court such as the one in this instance, the watch word for an appellate Court to which the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction would stand must be substantial justice. That is to say that if the Customary Court’s decision which native customs are within their bosom and such is alright and should not be lightly tampered with. The reason for this principle is simple and that is because ascription of probative value to the evidence of witnesses is pre-eminently the business of the trial Court in an appellate jurisdiction which acts on the cold facts from the record. Therefore, that appellate Court will not lightly interfere with the fact made by a Court unless there are compelling and very persuasive reasons and in this case at hand, the reasons must be weighty indeed particularly since the Court at first instance, the Customary Court made a visit to the locus in quo which advantage the High Court did not have.” Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. in FALEYE v. DADA (2016-LCER-30561-SC) at (P. 6; Paras. A-D)