Judicial Precedence

Firstly, cases are authorities for what they decided. The doctrine of stare-decisis learned appellant's counsel asserts the lower Court has violated is about past decisions of Courts binding them in subsequent occasions where the facts and legislations applicable to the settled facts are same or similar to those the Courts earlier pronounced upon. Our case law has remained consistent on this principle. It is therefore settled that a Court lower in the judicial ladder is bound by its own or the ratio decidendi of a higher Court in an earlier case, if the issues of fact and the legislation the Court considers subsequently are same or similar. See Dr. Umar Ardo V. Admiral Murtala Nyako & Ors. (2014) LPELR-22878 (SC) and Nigeria Agip Oil Company Ltd V. Chief Gift Nkweke (2016) LPELR-26060 (SC). Where the lower Court, as in the instant case, holds itself bound by the decision of this Court on same or similar facts, appellant's grudge against the lower Court's decision cannot therefore, be taken seriously. See Dalhatu V. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310 and Nobis-Elendu V. INEC & Ors (2015) LPELR-25127 (SC).

Stare decisis et non quela movera, which means standing by what has been decided and not to disturb and unsettle things already established, is a doctrine employed in adjudication to promote consistency and certainty in the law: ADIS ABABA V. ADEYEMI (1976) 12 SC 51 AT 58 59; ADESOKAN V. ADETUNJI (1994) 5 NWLR (P.345) 540 AT 577 578; CLEMENT V. IWUANYANWU (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.107) 39.

The doctrine of stare decisis which persists in this Court, and indeed in common law jurisdictions, under the rule of precedent is that this Court is to abide by former precedents where the same points come again in litigation. It presupposes, in the words of Adekeye, JSC, in DINGYADI & ANOR V. INEC & ORS (2011) LPELR 950 (SC), that the law on the point has been solemnly declared and determined in a previous case.