DAMAGES AND REMEDIES ā General Damages ā Appellate Interference ā Principles
Principle Statement
The principles upon which an appellate court acts in an appeal against the quantum of damages are well settled and were stated thus by Greer, LJ in Flint v. Lovell (1935) 1 KB 354 at P. 360 'In order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount of damages it will generally be necessary that this Court should be convinced either that the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make, in the judgment of this court an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled.'
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Musdapher, JSC, in Adim v. NBC Plc & Anor (2010) NLC-123-56-2003(SC) at p. 10; Paras DāE.
"The principles upon which an appellate court acts in an appeal against the quantum of damages are well settled and were stated thus by Greer, LJ in Flint v. Lovell (1935) 1 KB 354 at P. 360 'In order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount of damages it will generally be necessary that this Court should be convinced either that the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make, in the judgment of this court an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled.'"
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes the two grounds for appellate interference with general damages: wrong principle of law or amount so extremely high or low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate. The principle applies where general damages are challenged. It ensures that appellate courts respect trial court discretion. The principle reflects the limited scope of appellate review. It prevents interference based on mere disagreement. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on appellate review of general damages.
