CIVIL PROCEDURE — Discretion of Trial Judge — Refusal of Adjournment and Discontinuance — Appellate Court Will Not Interfere Unless Exercise Tainted
Ratio Decidendi
Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in APGA & Anor v. Umeh & Ors (2011) NLC-123-21-2010(SC) at pp. 25—26; Paras E—A:
"To grant or refuse to grant leave to discontinue a case is entirely at the discretion of the trial judge. The grant of adjournment is also discretionary. An appellate court will not interfere with the way the trial judge exercises his discretion but would interfere if satisfied that it is in the interest of justice to do So, or the exercise was tainted with some illegality or irregularity. Once a discretion is exercised judicially and judiciously, that is to say, with correct and convincing reasons the exercise of discretion would be held to have been properly exercised."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that granting or refusing leave to discontinue or adjourn is at the trial judge’s discretion. An appellate court will not interfere unless the exercise was tainted with illegality, irregularity, or it is in the interest of justice to interfere. The principle applies where discretionary decisions are challenged. It ensures that discretion is respected. The principle reflects the limited scope of appellate review. It prevents unnecessary interference. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on discretionary decisions.