Judicious Exercise of Judicial Discretion – Meaning, Extent and Exceptions Through Decided Cases

Abstract

The phrase “judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously” is regularly 
employed in the adjudicatory system although its exact meaning, extent and exceptions remain largely misunderstood. In many instances, this ageless phrase is interpreted to mean that a Court that has discretion over a matter can decide anyhow it pleased. Deploying the doctrinal research method, this paper showcased many ways in which Courts are conferred with discretion under their respective Rules including the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 and Supreme Court Rules, 2024. Following critical analysis of relevant judicial decisions, the paper found that these decisions are unanimous that exercise of discretion is almost sacred and inviolable although it is circumscribed by the guiding principle that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously. Hence, where judicial discretion is injudiciously exercised, the appellate Court will intervene. The paper recommended that a trial Court must ensure at all times that its exercise of discretion is logical and within the law in order to prevent its discretionary decision from being set aside on appeal. In the same wise, appellate Courts should not be too quick in fettering the exercise of judicial discretion since it is an indispensable tool in the administration of justice.