LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Award of Damages – Appellate Court Interferes Only for Wrong Principle or Wholly Erroneous Estimate
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court is not justified in substituting its own figure for that awarded by the lower court merely because it would have awarded a different figure. Interference is proper only if the trial judge applied a wrong principle, took into account irrelevant factors, left out relevant factors, or the amount is so ridiculously low or high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Ojini v. Ogo Oluwa Motors Nigeria Ltd (1998) NLC-1581991(SC) at pp. 10–11; Paras E–B.
"An appellate court is not justified in substituting a figure of its own for that awarded by the lower court merely because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case at first instance. Before it can properly intervene, it must be satisfied either that the Judge, in assessing the damages, applied a wrong principle of law such as taking into account some irrelevant factor or leaving out of account some relevant factor, 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 court’s assessment of damages. Interference requires error of principle or manifestly erroneous estimate. The appellant must show that the trial court applied wrong principles or ignored relevant factors. The rule prevents appellate courts from substituting their own discretion. The principle applies to all damages awards. The trial court’s assessment is entitled to respect. The appellate court will not interfere lightly. The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. The rule promotes finality in damages awards.