APPELLATE PRACTICE — Interference with Discretion — When Appellate Court May Intervene
Ratio Decidendi
Per Muhammad, JSC, in Babatunde v. Pan Atlantic Shipping and Transport Agencies Ltd (2007) NLC-123-154-2002(SC) at pp. 26–27; Paras A–B:
"An appellate court will certainly interfere with the exercise of discretion by a trial court where it can be shown that the discretion was not exercised judicially and judiciously, that is to say if the exercise was mala fide, arbitrary, illegal either by considering extraneous matters or failing to consider material issues. The question to be borne in mind at all times in reviewing the exercise of discretion is whether the exercise accords with the dictates of justice."
Explanation / Scope
Trial courts enjoy wide discretionary powers in procedural and substantive matters. Appellate courts do not interfere merely because they would have exercised the discretion differently. Intervention is warranted only when the discretion was exercised capriciously or unjustly. The test is whether the decision was made arbitrarily, upon wrong principles, or in disregard of relevant factors. The appellate court examines the decision-making process, not the outcome alone. Where the discretion was exercised reasonably and fairly, the appellate court will uphold it. The overarching consideration is whether the exercise aligns with the dictates of justice—a flexible standard that prevents rigid application of rules where it would produce injustice.