Why One Court’s Decision Can Bind Another – The Power of Legal Precedent



When people hear that courts follow earlier judgments, the first question that comes to mind is: Why don’t judges just decide based on their personal sense of justice? The answer lies in the Doctrine of Precedent, also called Stare Decisis – a Latin phrase meaning “to stand by things decided.”

This principle is one of the cornerstones of the legal system, both in Nigeria and other common law countries like England. It ensures consistency, stability, and predictability in the law, so that similar cases are treated alike, regardless of which judge is sitting.

What is the Doctrine of Precedent?

The doctrine of precedent means that courts are bound to follow earlier decisions made by higher courts in the hierarchy. This prevents conflicting rulings and ensures that citizens, businesses, and governments know what to expect from the law.

For example, once the Supreme Court of Nigeria makes a ruling on a legal issue, all lower courts must follow it in future cases with similar facts. This makes the law more reliable and prevents judges from deciding cases based solely on personal opinions or changing moods.

Why It Matters

  • Consistency: People with similar disputes are treated fairly and equally.
  • Certainty: Lawyers can advise clients based on established law, not guesswork.
  • Stability: Society can plan and operate with confidence, knowing that rules won’t shift overnight.
  • Judicial Discipline: Judges stay within the boundaries of law instead of becoming lawmakers themselves.

Nigerian Examples of Precedent in Action

1. Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250

The Supreme Court famously held that “a court is bound by its own decisions except in special circumstances.” This showed the strength of stare decisis in ensuring consistency.

2. Bucknor-Maclean v. Inlaks Ltd (1980) 8–11 SC 1

Here, the Nigerian Supreme Court reaffirmed that once it has decided on a matter, it is binding on all lower courts until overruled by the same Supreme Court.

3. Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310

The Supreme Court emphasized that even when a judge personally disagrees with a past decision, he or she is bound to follow it until a higher court rules otherwise.

These cases illustrate how one court’s decision can shape the course of justice across the entire country.

The Balance: Precedent vs. Flexibility

While precedent is binding, it is not absolutely rigid. The Supreme Court of Nigeria can depart from its own earlier decisions if they are clearly wrong, outdated, or lead to injustice. This balance ensures that the law remains both stable and adaptable to new realities.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Precedent (Stare Decisis) is more than just a legal rule – it is the backbone of fairness in the justice system. It ensures that justice is not the personal opinion of a judge, but a reflection of consistent, tested principles that apply equally to all.

Next time you hear that one court’s decision binds another, you’ll understand that it’s not about limiting judges’ freedom, but about protecting society from uncertainty and bias.


#DoctrineOfPrecedent #StareDecisis #NigerianLaw #LegalPrecedent #SupremeCourt #RuleOfLaw #JusticeSystem

Comments

Post a Comment