APPELLATE PRACTICE — Findings of Fact — When Court of Appeal Finding is Perverse
Principle Statement
The holding by the lower court that appellant was paid his retirement benefit is clearly not supported by the evidence on record and I consequently hold that the said holding or finding is perverse and consequently subject to being set aside.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Ekeagwu v. NA (2010) NLC-123-104-2006(SC) at p. 10; Paras B–C.
"The holding by the lower court that appellant was paid his retirement benefit is clearly not supported by the evidence on record and I consequently hold that the said holding or finding is perverse and consequently subject to being set aside."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a finding not supported by evidence is perverse and subject to being set aside. The principle applies where a finding is challenged. It ensures that findings are based on evidence. The principle reflects that perverse findings cannot stand. It prevents courts from making unsupported findings. The court must set aside perverse findings. The principle provides guidance on when a finding is perverse.
