Stare Decisis (84)
HELD:
"The emphasis of the appellant's counsel that the Tribunal was biased merely because they failed to record and follow a particular authority cited to them is misplaced.
HELD:
"It is trite that legal principles established in decided authorities are not to be applied across board and in all matters without regard to the facts and issues submitted for adjudication in a particular case.
HELD:
"An obiter dictum is a statement made in passing which does not form part of the ratio decidendi of the decision appealed.
HELD:
"In the wide realm of jurisprudence, there is a wide dichotomy between the terms ration decidendi and obiter dictum though both derive their etymological descent from Latin language.
HELD:
''It is the ratio decidendi; not the obiter dictum that is binding on the lower courts. There are however instances when an obiter dictum of the Supreme Court could be binding on inferior courts.'' See Suleman v. C.O.P. Plateau State (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt.1089)298Per NIKI TOBI, J.S.C. (Pp. 31-32, Paras. G-A)
HELD:
"The Supreme Court had earlier in A.G. ONDO STATE v. A.G. EKITI STATE (2001) 17 NWLR (pt.743) 706 interpreted Section 7(1) of Decree No. 41 of 1991. Section 7(1) of Decree No. 36 of 1996 is in pari materia with Section 7(1) of Decree No. 47 of 1991. When this Court was called upon to interpret the Provisions of Section 7(1) of Decree No. 36 of 1996 it adopted the interpretation it had earlier given to Section 7(1) of Decree No. 41 of 1991.
HELD:
"For a court to be bound by a decision of a superior court or to be persuaded by the decision of another court, the facts of the case must be on all fours or in pari materia with the one before it. See Magit vs. University of Agric., Makurdi (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 211 at 247 and 257." UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR TEACHING HOSPITAL & ANOR. v. JULIET KOKO BASSEY(2008) LPELR-8553(CA) Per OMOKRI, J.C.A. (Pp.33-34, Paras.G-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"It is a cardinal principle of law under the doctrine of stare decisis that every inferior Court is bound by the decision of a Superior Court; and it is not the place of an inferior Court to say that the decision of the Superior Court was wrongly decided.
HELD:
"Obiter dicta cannot be the basis for raising a ground of appeal from which an issue can be framed. The comment is not a ratio decidendi of the decision appealed against. See Ede v. Aneke (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.424) 428 at 435, Igwe v. AICE Owerri (1994) 8 NWLR (pt.363) 549 ratio 14." ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC)Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (P. 51, paras. E-G)
FACTS:
HELD:
"The law is trite, where there are conflicting judgments of Courts of equal jurisdiction, the rule is that the decision that is latter in time prevails. See the cases of Alao v. V.V.C Unilorin (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1069) 421 @ 450, paragraphs F-H; and Adigun v. Ayinde (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 315) 534. The trite position of law has been restated by the Apex Court in the case of Osakwe v. Federal College of Education (2010) 3 SCNJ page 529 at 546 where Ogbuagu, JSC had this to say:- "Those who think they are very knowledgeable than this Court, if they have listening ears, let them hear and take care. I have gone this far, because the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal in the University of Ilorin v. Adeniran (supra), who claim or assert to be "torn between the two judgments of this Court" should please take note and come to terms with the principles or doctrines of stare decisis, precedents and hierarchy of the Courts, which are clear and unambiguous. They are an indispensable foundation. For the umpteenth time, where there appear to be conflicting judgments of this Court, the later or latest will or should apply and must be followed if the circumstances are the same." CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v. MUSA ZAKARI(2018) LPELR-44751(CA)Per BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Pp. 33-34, Paras. E-E)
FACTS: