LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Findings of Fact – Role of Appellate Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is not the function of the appellate court to interfere with the findings of trial court on facts; there are however exemptions to this rule: if finding is not supported by evidence that finding shall be set aside by appellate court; also when the finding is supported by evidence but that evidence is by law not admissible or the finding is perverse it will be set aside by appellate court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"It is not the function of the appellate Court to interfere with the findings of trial court on facts. There are however exemptions to this rule. If findings is not supported by evidence that finding shall be set aside by appellate Court: also when the finding is supported by evidence but that evidence is by law not admissible or the finding is perverse it will be set aside by appellate court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This reinforces Principles 216, 313, 348, 359, and 424. General rule: appellate courts don’t interfere with trial court fact findings. Exceptions permitting interference: (1) Finding unsupported by evidence: no evidential basis exists for the finding—completely lacking proof. (2) Finding based on inadmissible evidence: evidence supporting finding was legally inadmissible (hearsay, improperly obtained, violating evidence rules). (3) Perverse finding: no reasonable tribunal could reach such finding on the evidence—fundamentally unreasonable or irrational. These exceptions ensure: appellate oversight of legal errors, correction of findings lacking evidential basis, and protection against irrational decisions. However, appellate courts must not: interfere merely because they might have weighed evidence differently, substitute their credibility assessments, or second-guess reasonable findings within evidential support. “Perverse” sets high bar—not merely wrong or disagreeable, but so unreasonable no reasonable tribunal could reach it. This framework balances: respecting trial court fact-finding primacy (seeing witnesses, assessing demeanor) against correcting fundamental errors (no evidence, inadmissible evidence, perversity). The exceptions are limited—most findings stand unless falling within these specific grounds.