BAKARI V. STATE (2025) 2 NWLR (PT. 1975) 33
ON WHEN A FINDING OR DECISION IS PERVERSE
A finding or decision is characterised as perverse where:
(a) It runs counter to the pleadings and evidence on record; or
(b) the trial court took into account matters which ought not to have been considered; or
(c) the trial court turns a blind eye to the obvious circumstances of the case before it; or
(d) legal principles are wrongly applied to correctly ascertained facts.
Thus, in any of the foregoing instances, the appellate court has an onerous duty, and would indeed be justified, to readily interfere with a view to avoiding a miscarriage of justice. [Rabiu v. State (1981) 2NCLR 117; Atolagbe v. Shorun (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 360; Abegunde v. OSHA (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt.1461) 314; Regd . Trustees DCLM v. Ebodaghe (2022)17 NWLR (Pt. 1859) 357; [Udengu v. Uzuegbu (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.836) 136; Atolagbe v. Shorun.