Ratio Decidendi

Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) NLC-123-217-2004(SC) at p. 15; Paras B—D:

"An appeal Court is always loath to interfere with such award, but will be compelled to do so: (a) Where the trial judge acted under a misapprehension of facts, or law; (b) Where he failed to take into account relevant matters; (c) Where the amount awarded is too low or too high; (d) Where failing to interfere would amount to injustice."
View Judgment →

Explanation / Scope

This principle establishes that an appellate court will interfere with an award of general damages where the trial judge misapprehended facts or law, failed to consider relevant matters, awarded too low or too high, or where failing to interfere would cause injustice. The principle applies where damages are challenged. It ensures that awards are just. The principle reflects the limited scope of appellate review. It prevents unjust awards from standing. The court must find an exception. The principle provides guidance on interfering with damages.

Cases Applying This Principle

Cameroon Airlines v. Mike E. Otutuizu