Stare Decisis (84)
HELD:
"Just for emphasis, I would say on issue 2, that the doctrine or principle of stare decisis or judicial precedence, is of considerable antiquity as embedded in the borrowed English law from which our laws; both substantive and procedural, evolved and has become firmly established in our judicial jurisprudence to now be common knowledge in the appellate Courts.
HELD:
"It is a settled position of our law that the decision of any foreign Court is of persuasive authority and not binding on our Courts.
HELD:
"The position of the law and decided authorities on the doctrine of stare decisis was eloquently adumbrated by a full panel of this Court in the case of Dalhatu Vs Turaki & Ors. (2003) LPELR-917(SC) @ 41-43 C- F, thus:
HELD:
"No Court can give contrary decision to what Supreme Court has decided and pronounced upon. See 1. O. C. MAJOROH V PROF. M. A. FASASI (1987) 3 NWLR (PART 59) 42 AT 45H TO 46 A per KAYODE, ESO, JSC who said:-
HELD:
"It would have been a specious gamble and unpardonable error on the part of Election Tribunal if it refused to take judicial notice of the judgments or give contrary decision bearing in mind that in the hierarchy of Courts in Nigeria vide Section 6 CFRN 1999, the Supreme Court of Nigeria is the Zenith or apex Court in Nigeria.
HELD:
"It is trite that every case is decided based on its peculiar facts and circumstances. SeeDICK VS. OUR AND OIL COMPANY LTD (2018) LPELR-44354 (SC) per Peter Odili, JSC pp 32-41 paras A-F where the Apex Court held as follows: -
HELD:
"The lower Court's judgment, learned senior counsel for the appellant insists is set - aside drew from this Court's foregoing decisions which not only bind lower Courts but this Court as well.