APPELLATE PRACTICE — Exercise of Discretion — Principles Governing Review
Ratio Decidendi
Per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, in Oyeyemi v. Irewole Local Govt. (1993) NWLR (Pt.270) 402 at 475; adopted by Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, in Minister of Petroleum And Mineral Resources & Anor v. Expo-Shipping Line (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) NLC-123-1-2003(SC) at p. 5, para. F – p. 6, para. A:
"But, like all appeals on exercise of its discretion by a lower court, we can review the exercise of it but should only interfere if the discretion was not exercised judicially and judiciously, that is, its exercise was mala fide, arbitrary, illegal, or either by considering extraneous matters or by not taking into consideration material issues.........I must note that it be exercised in accordance with the relevant rules of law or practice and according to the rules of reason and justice and not in accordance with private or whimsical opinion, humour or sentiment."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that an appellate court may review the exercise of discretion but should only interfere if the discretion was not exercised judicially and judiciously—that is, if it was mala fide, arbitrary, illegal, or based on extraneous matters or omission of material issues. Discretion must be exercised in accordance with law, reason, and justice, not private opinion, humour, or sentiment. The principle applies where discretionary orders are appealed. It ensures that discretion is properly exercised. The principle reflects the grounds for appellate interference. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on reviewing discretion.