Stare Decisis (84)
"It is settled law that an obiter dictum cannot form the basis of a ground of appeal. See: U.T.C. Nig. Ltd. Vs Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.1031 244; Olufeagba Vs Abdur-Raheem (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt.1173) 384 @ 426 E; K.R.K. Holdings Nig. Ltd. Vs First Bank of Nig. Ltd. & Anor. (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt.1552) 326." TITILAYO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS v. CHIEF JOSHUA ABESI FAGBOLA(2019) LPELR-47606(SC) Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (P. 17, Paras. B-D)
FACTS:
The principle of judicial precedent or stare decisis is designed to ensure orderliness, certainty and discipline in the judicial process. The principle holds inferior courts to the Supreme Court of Nigeria bound by the previous decision(s) of the court on similar facts in the consideration and determination of matters before them. It is settled that the way open to the courts to avoid the doctrine/principle of judicial precedent/stare decisis is by distinguishing the previous decision(s) – from the facts and/or circumstances of the case under consideration. Ardo v. Nyako (2014) LPELR-22878 (SC).A.G. Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd. Anor(2017) 6-12 M.J.S.C[P. 58] Paras. C-F
FACTS:
Facts have views. A judgment should always be read in light of the facts on which the case was decided. The rules of stare decisis do not allow Courts to apply the ratio of a case across the board and with little regard to the facts of the case before them. Albion Construction Ltd. v. R. A. O. Inv. & Prod. Ltd. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 219) 583. Emekav. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 96 H; (2012) LPELR-9338 (SC).A.G. Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd. Anor(2017) 6-12 M.J.S.C [Pp. 58-59] Paras. G-A
FACTS:
Stare decisis” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition as follows:
“To stand by – things decided. “The doctrine of precedent under which it is necessary for a court to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.”
“The rule of adherence to judicial precedents finds its expression in the doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine is simply that, when a point or principle of law has been once officially decided or settled by the ruling of a competent court in a case in which it is directly and necessarily involved, it will no longer be considered as open to examination or to a new ruling by the same tribunal, or by those which are bound to follow its adjudication, unless it be for urgent reasons and in exceptional cases.” William M. Lile et al. Brief Marking and the Use of Law Books 321 (3rd ed. 1914).A.G. Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd. Anor(2017) 6-12 M.J.S.C[PP. 57-58] Paras. F-B
FACTS:
"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. This Court made the point in Emeka v Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (pt 1331) 55 where it was stated that a judgment should always be read in the light of the facts on which it was decided.
"...Counsel to the Respondents echoed the position taken by the lower Court in the judgment that this adopted procedure accorded with what took place in the case of Amaechi V. Independent National Electoral Commission (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt 1080) 227 and was sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
"On the circumstances in which the doctrine of stare decisis would arise, His Lordship Rhodes-Vivour, JSC in Emeka Vs Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1331) 55 @ 96 H; (2012) LPELR-9338 (SC) held: "Facts have no views. A judgment should always be read in light of the facts on which the case was decided.
"Stare decisis" is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th edition as follows: "To stand by things decided." The doctrine of precedent under which it necessary for a court to follow earlier judicial when the same points arise again in litigation."
"The term stare decisis thus means to abide by former precedents where the same points come again in litigation - See Clement vs Iwuanvanwu (1989) 3NWLR (Pt.107) 39. However, it is not everything stated in the decision/judgment that constitutes the stare decisis.
"The right of the appellants to call for a departure from an earlier judgment or principle is not in contest. It is however a right that cannot be called up in vacuo or without the factors upon which this court would accede to such an invitation being absent. Those considerations that must exist before such a departure can be made are stated as follows: