“The law is settled that re-evaluation of evidence by an appellate Court is only done where the trial Court has erred in evaluating the facts found by it. This is where the appellate Court can re-evaluate the whole facts and come to an independent decision from the trial Court. The appellate Court is in a good position to embark on the exercise where for instance: (a) the trial Court’s evaluation of the evidence is clearly perverse; (b) the trial Court drew wrong inferences from the totality of the evidence adduced; and (c) the trial Court applied wrong principles of the law to accepted facts in the case. See Onyekwuluje & Anor Vs. Animashaun & Anor. (2019) LPELR – 46528 (SC), Jibrin vs. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43844 (SC); Ali vs State 2015 LPELR- 24711 (SC). However, where the evaluation of evidence by the lower Court is found to be properly done, there would be no need for an appellate Court to embark on the exercise.” Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC in U.T.C. (NIG) PLC v. PETERS (2022-LCER-46526-SC) (Pp 15 – 16; Paras E – C)