LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Interference with Findings of Fact — When Decision is Perverse
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A decision of a court is perverse when it ignores the facts or evidence before it and, when considered as a whole, amounts to a miscarriage of justice. In such a case, an appellate court is bound to interfere with such a decision and to set it aside.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in NEPA v. Ososanya & Ors (2004) NLC-172002(SC) at pp. 16–17; Paras E–A.
"A decision of a court is perverse when it ignores the facts or evidence before it and, when considered as a whole, amounts to a miscarriage of justice. In such a case, an appellate court is bound to interfere with such a decision and to set it aside."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A perverse decision ignores or disregards evidence before the court. It results in a miscarriage of justice when viewed as a whole. The principle applies to appellate practice. An appellate court must interfere with and set aside such decisions. The rule provides an exception to non-interference with findings of fact. Perversity justifies appellate intervention.
