COURT MUST CONFINE ITS DECISION TO THE PARTIES AND CLAIMS

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL DEPART FROM HIS EARLIER DECISION

As departure from a decision of a court or overruling a decision of a court is a very major judicial exercise, which if done often will ruin or jeopardise the stable rules of judicial precedent, and particularly the rules of stare decisis, courts of law, even the highest court of the land, will not yield to the invitation of counsel just for the asking, in the sense that the case sought to be overruled is not in favour of the party. In asking for a case to be overruled, the party should take into account or consideration, the totality of the decision, meaning that the ratio decidendi must be considered along with the facts of the case. The party should also make a distinction, if any, in the case between a ratio decidendi and an obiter dictum. If a party’s worry is an obiter dictum, a court of law will not depart from its earlier judgment or overrule it because obiter does not ipso facto have or possess any force in the judgment. And when I say this I am not ignorant of the law that obiter dictum of this Court followed by this Court in certain instances could ripen into a ratio decidendi by frequent adoption.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008

FINAL VS INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS: DISTINCTION

In Clement C. Ebokam vs. Ekwenibe & Sons Trading Company Ltd. (1999) 7 SCNJ 77, Kalgo, JSC held at page 87 that: “…Where the decisions of the Court under consideration clearly and wholly disposes of all the rights of the parties in the case, that decision is final. But where the decision only disposes of an issue or issues in the case, leaving the parties to go back to claim other rights in the Court, then that decision is interlocutory. And in order to determine whether the decision is final or interlocutory, the decision must relate to the subject matter in dispute between the parties and not the function of the Court making the order.”

IT IS PRINCIPLE OF A DECISION THAT APPLIES

I shall now consider what really was decided in these two cases and see if the principles of those decisions (not the dicta) apply to the facts and circumstances of the case now on appeal.

– Oputa, JSC. Green v. Green (1987)

CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF TWO COORDINATE COURTS ARE PERSUASIVE

Since the conflicting decisions of the two courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are persuasive only and not binding, the High Courts of the Northern States are at liberty to follow either until the matter is settled by the Court of Appeal or this Court.

– M. Bello, JSC. AG Kaduna State v. Hassan (1985) – SC.149/1984