LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Judicial Discretion – Appellate Interference Only Where Discretion Is Not Exercised Judicially and Judiciously
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The exercise of discretion by the trial court may be reviewed on appeal, but an appellate court must not interfere unless the discretion was not exercised judicially and judiciously, such as being mala fide, arbitrary, illegal, based on extraneous matters, or inconsistent with the ends of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Echaka Cattle Ranch Ltd. v. Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1998) NLC-1341993(SC) at p. 25; Paras B–D.
"While it is the law that the exercise of its discretion by the trial court may be reviewed on appeal, an appellate court must not interfere unless it can be shown that such discretion was not exercised judicially and judiciously, that is to say, if the exercise was mala fide, arbitrary, illegal either by the consideration of extraneous or irrelevant matters or failure to consider material issues, or otherwise that it was exercised in a manner that was inconsistent with the ends of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court discretion. Interference requires demonstration that discretion was not exercised judicially. The appellant must show mala fides, arbitrariness, illegality, or consideration of extraneous matters. The rule applies to all discretionary decisions. The appellate court will not substitute its own discretion. The principle promotes respect for trial courts. The burden is on the appellant to show error. The court will examine whether relevant factors were considered.