LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Trial Court’s Consideration of Circumstances
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the trial court has adverted its mind to all relevant considerations and there is no unfairness or miscarriage of justice, the appellate court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kalgo, JSC, in Josiah Cornelius Ltd & Ors v. Ezenwa (2002) NLC-952000(SC) at p. 14; Paras A–C.
"In the instant case, and applying the above principles thereto, I find that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have changed the orders made by the trial court with its own, which amounts to substituting its own discretion for that of the trial court based on the misconception of the relevant facts. I find that the trial court had adverted its mind to all relevant considerations in the matter before making the orders complained of and there was no question of unfairness or miscarriage of justice occasioned on any of the parties in the exercise of the discretion."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The appellate court errs when it substitutes its own discretion for that of the trial court without finding error. If the trial court considered all relevant factors and no injustice occurred, the appellate court should not interfere. The principle respects the trial court’s position. The appellate court must find that the trial court acted on wrong principles. Substitution of discretion is not permitted merely because the appellate court would have decided differently. The rule applies to all discretionary decisions. The appellant must show that the trial court ignored relevant factors or considered extraneous ones. The appellate court will not intervene lightly.
