It is rudimentary law that when a person anchors an appeal on the omnibus ground of appeal that the judgment being appealed from is against the weight of evidence on record, what that person implies is that the court below failed to properly evaluate the evidence. The attack on improper evaluation of the evidence may arise from an allegation that certain vital pieces of evidence were not considered; or that immaterial matters were considered in the evaluation of the evidence before the court; or that, the court failed to properly apply the law to the evidence. The resultant allegation simply is that the outcome of the alleged mis-evaluation flies in the face of the evidence adduced at the trial, and thus the decision arrived is wrong. In such situations the Appellant carries the onus of pointing out to the court the errors in the evaluation of the evidence just as the appellate court is also expected to comb through the entire record and arrive at its own findings. The statement of law was expressed profoundly in the case of Djin v Musah Baako [2007-2008] SCGLR 686 that: “It has been held in several decided cases that where an appellant complains that judgement is against the weight of evidence, he is implying that there were certain pieces of evidence on the record which, if applied in his favour, could have changed the decision in his favour, or certain pieces of evidence have been wrongly applied against him. The onus is on such an appellant to clearly and properly demonstrate to the appellate court the lapses in the judgment being appealed against.” See also Tuakwa v Bosom [2001-2002] SCGLR 61.