LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Findings of Fact – When Appellate Court May Interfere
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An error is perverse when the gravity necessitates the reversal of the decision of the lower court. The decision of the trial Judge substantially affected the outcome of the contest. See Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91. His finding that the Iju/Jack House disintegrated and existed as a 'shadow house' under the umbrella of Oba Standfast Jack House is not supported by the evidence having regard to the violent conflict in the evidence of PW1 on the one hand and PW2 and PW4 on the other. The contradictions are material in nature and crucial to the case of the plaintiffs. The court below was right in interfering with the findings.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"An error is perverse when the gravity necessitates the reversal of the decision of the lower court. The decision of the trial Judge substantially affected the outcome of the contest. See Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91. His finding that the Iju/Jack House disintegrated and existed as a 'shadow house' under the umbrella of Oba Standfast Jack House is not supported by the evidence having regard to the violent conflict in the evidence of PW1 on the one hand and PW2 and PW4 on the other. The contradictions are material in nature and crucial to the case of the plaintiffs. The court below was right in interfering with the findings."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An error is perverse when its gravity necessitates reversal—the decision substantially affects the outcome. A finding unsupported by evidence, especially where there are material contradictions in the plaintiff’s own witnesses, is perverse. Where material contradictions exist—witnesses disagreeing on fundamental facts—the trial court’s finding is not supported by evidence. The appellate court may interfere. Perversity includes findings that run counter to the evidence, ignore material facts, or draw impossible inferences. Material contradictions—not minor inconsistencies—affect credibility. The appellate court must intervene where the trial court’s finding is not reasonably supported. The principle preserves the right to appeal against manifestly erroneous findings.
