LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Appeals – Appellate Review of Damages – Principles for Interference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court ought not to upset the award of damages by a trial court merely because if it had tried the matter it would have awarded a lesser amount. However, an appellate court may properly intervene where it is satisfied that the judge in assessing the damages applied a wrong principle of law such as taking into account some irrelevant facts or leaving out of account some relevant factors, or that the amount awarded is either so ridiculously low or so ridiculously high that it must have been a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in A.C.B. Ltd. & Ors v. Apugo (2001) NLC-1651995(SC) at p. 17; Paras A–C.
"An appellate court ought not to upset the award of damages by a trial court merely because if it had tried the matter it would have awarded a lesser amount. However, an appellate court may properly intervene where it is satisfied that the judge in assessing the damages applied a wrong principle of law such as taking into account some irrelevant facts or leaving out of account some relevant factors, or that the amount awarded is either so ridiculously low or so ridiculously high that it must have been a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial courts on damages—disagreement with the amount alone does not justify interference. Intervention is warranted only where: (1) wrong legal principle applied (irrelevant factors considered or relevant factors ignored); or (2) the award is so ridiculously low or high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. This respects the trial court’s discretionary assessment while correcting manifest error. The appellant must show not mere inadequacy or excessiveness but that the award is entirely unreasonable. The test is whether the award falls within the permissible range for similar cases. This preserves judicial efficiency and finality.