LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Appellate Practice — Re-evaluation of Evidence by Appellate Court — When Appellate Court May Interfere with Trial Judge’s Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the evaluation of evidence by the trial judge is perverse (not properly borne out from the evidence), an appellate judge may re-evaluate the evidence and come to a proper decision. A perverse finding is speculative, not based on evidence, or completely outside the evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Obioha v. Nigerian Postal Services Ltd & Ors (2003) NLC-871999(SC) at p. 28; Paras A–C.
"Where the evaluation of the evidence by the trial Judge is perverse, in the sense that it is not properly borne out from the evidence before him, an appellate Judge is competent to re-evaluate the evidence on the records before him and come to a proper decision. A perverse finding is a finding of facts which is merely speculative and not based on any evidence before the court. A perverse finding is an unreasonable and unacceptable finding because it is wrong and completely outside the evidence before the trial Judge."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts may re-evaluate evidence when findings are perverse. Perversity means findings unsupported by evidence. The principle applies to all appeals. The trial court’s advantage does not protect perverse findings. The rule ensures correction of manifest errors. The appellant must show perversity. The principle is well-established.