LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Exercise of Discretion — Appellate Court Will Not Interfere with Lower Court’s Discretion Exercised Judicially
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court when such discretion has been exercised judicially. Interference is only justified when the lower court exercised discretion upon a wrong principle, mistake of law, misapprehension of facts, took into account irrelevant matters, or where injustice has arisen.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwais, JSC, in Nigerian Airports Authority v. Okoro (1995) NLC-971989(SC) at pp. 1–2; Paras. D–A.
"It is a well established principle of law that an appeal court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court when such discretion has been exercised judicially. It is only when the lower court exercised the discretion upon a wrong principle or mistake of law or under a misapprehension of the facts or has taken into account irrelevant matters or on the ground that injustice could arise or has arisen that the appeal court will interfere."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court discretion. The appellant must show that the discretion was exercised on wrong principles or that injustice resulted. The principle respects the trial court’s position. The appellate court will not substitute its own discretion. The rule applies to all discretionary decisions. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error. The court will examine whether relevant factors were considered. The principle promotes judicial efficiency and finality.