(unreported) delivered on 315t July 2013, said this about the limit to the exercise by a court of a discretion - "The limit is that the discretion should, like any other judicial discretion, be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously, and should follow sound reasoning based on the facts and relevant law; to borrow from local parlance, the court is not entitled "to do whatever it likes or that which take's to its fancy" . 1 Judicious consideration implies fair play and doing justice." , The statement of the principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion ·and its consideration on appeal was reiterated by my brother. Ju stice Onnogher dSC in the recent l "h II judgment of this Court, in the case of MADIKABBEH JABBIAND ALHAGILANSANA SILLAH • I (both parties suing in their representative capacities), delivered''qn {j• ji!IIIIIIIIIII!J· He said- ll Ill 1!1,,1 I 1111111111 ' 111111111 ' 6th. May ·2015. t lllllllll' " It is not whether this coyrt, being an app llate court in the matter and faced with 1 the same set of facfs·would Have exercised 1 is discretion differently. Also settled is ' J ' • the principle that the Supreme Court or an appellate court for that matter, does not make a pra ticzel!Of 'interfering with.the 'exercise of discretion by the lower court for • hj)' I ' 1 the P,urpose of exercising the I discretion differently or reaching a conclusion li'\ i '•, · differe£1 'lfr om that of t hefllower court particularly when it is not demonstrated that Ill ,jtUh. • II'!· 1 the' lower cqurt improperly or wrongfully exercised its discretion." t • ' illtllt•l 1 1,, . • Now, in this case the questions that, in my opinion, arise are whether the trial judge's IIIII exercise of his discretion was arbitrary or capricious, or judicious and judicial, based on I, lill!h.. . A;IIJ . . . l hsouna reasomng; and whether the lower court ought to have mterfered w1th the JUdge's h, I exercise of discretion. ·illh It is obvious from he tria dge's response to the plea in mitigation, reproduced above, that he did take tne following matters into consideration before sentencing --==.. SC NO. 212012 - NFAt'v1ARA SAIDYKHAN VS THE STATE- 7TH MAY 2015 • Page 111