STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

APPELLATE COURT WILL ORDINARILY NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Where the trial Judge in his Judgment thinks it is proper to exercise his discretion in a particular way, an Appellate Court would ordinarily not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless it is established that the discretion was exercised in total disregard to the materials before the Court. A judicial and judicious exercise of discretion by a trial Court cannot to be set aside by the Appellate Court, but where the Lower Court acted under a misconception of the law or under a misapprehension of facts or where such exercise of discretion occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant, the appellate Court will readily intervene to redress the wrong, an Appellate Court will however not interfere with the decision of the trial Court merely because it would have exercised such discretion differently.

— T. Abubakar JCA. Olukoya Ogungbeje Esq. v. EFCC (CA/L/1408/2017, 18 Jul 2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

discretion

COURTS OF LAW EXERCISE DISCRETION ACCORDING TO RULES OF LAW

Judges and Courts exercise their discretion in accordance with rules of law and justice 42 and not according to private opinion. An exercise of discretion is a liberty or privilege to decide and act in accordance with what is fair and equitable under the peculiar circumstances of the particular case, guided by the spirit and principles of law.

— H.M. Ogunwumiju, JSC. UBA v Triedent Consulting Ltd. (SC.CV/405/2013, July 07, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

TRIAL JUDGE DISCRETION FOR LOCUS IN QUO; LOCUS IN QUO

It is clearly at the discretion of the trial Judge to determine whether in the light of the evidence before him, there is need to resolve, by a visit to the locus in quo, the conflict of evidence or clear a doubt as to the accuracy of a piece of evidence when there is such conflict of evidence.

– Nweze JSC. Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019)

Was this dictum helpful?

POWER TO TRANSFER CASE TO ANOTHER DIVISION IS DISCRETIONARY – FHC

There is no doubt that the starting point with regards to the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is the statutorily codified and judicially noticed principle that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is one and nationwide. It is also however settled that same has been divided into Judicial Divisions and where a crime has been committed, such crime ought to be prosecuted in the Judicial Division of the Federal High Court in the State or States where any of the elements of the crime was allegedly committed, or one that is close to it, subject to the power of transfer, by which a matter may be tried outside the State of commission upon compelling reasons to so do. The foregoing is in my view the import of the Provisions of Sections, Section 45 of the Federal high Court Act; and Sections 93, 98, 385, 386 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, relied on by both parties. — J.Y. Tukur, JCA. Fani-Kayode v. FRN & Ors. (2019) – CA/L/722C/2018

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE A PARTY HAS SEVERAL OPTIONS, HE COULD USE ANYONE HE WANTS

It is now trite law that where a party is by law given the option or discretion to exercise his right in different ways it is not for an opponent to prescribe the particular form the other party should utilize and where the form adopted by the other party is not what the opponent feels is the right course, then automatically an abuse of court process would be said to have taken place. There were options open to the respondent to tackle the scenario before him and he cannot be confined to the only choice of a counter claim to the appellant’s counter claim to ventilate his own grouse or grievance even though at the base is the same contract or facts since he had the alternative of bringing a fresh action so that all that he needs say would be brought to the fore. He had that right and he was at liberty to take it and did so. I have therefore no difficulty in flowing along with what the court of Appeal did as I see no error in their decision in upholding that the fresh action filed by the respondent was in order and the integrity of the court was not jeopardized. I refer to the case of Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 at 170.

— M. Peter-Odili JSC. R-Benkay Nigeria Limited. V. Cadbury Nigeria Limited (SC.29/2006, 23 Mar 2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

APPELLATE COURT INTERFERENCE WITH TRIAL COURTS DISCRETION

It needs to be emphasised here that an appellate Court will usually not interfere with an exercise of discretion in its quest to obtain substantial justice except where it is satisfied that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or illegally or without due regard to all necessary consideration having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. – Nweze JSC. Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019)

Even then, it is well – established that an appellate Court will not, in principle, interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court unless that discretion is shown to have been exercised upon wrong principles or that the exercise was tainted with some illegality or substantial irregularity. – Nweze JSC. Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019)

Was this dictum helpful?

THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IS BASED ON FACTS

In ADIGWE v. FRN (2015) 18 NWLR (pt. 1490) 105 this Court reiterated the point that “the exercise of discretion is not based on mere judgment of the person doing so but upon facts on circumstances necessary for the proper exercise of that discretion”. See also OYEGUN v. NZERIBE (2010) 41 NSCQR 127 at 147.

— E. Eko, JSC. Francis v. FRN (2020) – SC.810/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.