Obiter Dictum

In respect to the other area in this preliminary objection which has to do with the competency of Grounds 2 and 3 of the appellants' Notice of Appeal since according to the Objectors were complaints against an obiter dictum of the Court below and not against the ratio decidendi of the lower Court and so this Court is urged to strike them out. It is true and has become trite in law that appeal does not arise out of an obiter dictum or side comment or as in local parlance 'side talk' but there is an exception to that general rule which is that where the ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum are so intertwined and almost inseparable the appeal on the point in issue will be valid. What this translates to is that an appellate Court should not rush to striking out grounds of appeal and I daresay that issues emanating therefrom without caution. As the Court could unwittingly strike out would look like an obiter dictum which would turn round to be not the ratio decidendi but a side comment that is germane and cannot be easily dislodged from the ratio decidendi. A situation as I am trying to put across presented in the case of N.N.P.C. v. Abdulrahman (2006) NWLR (Pt. 993) 202 at 207, Court of Appeal decision which stated thus:- "6. On mode of commencement of action challenging termination of employment proceedings for the challenge of termination of employment must be begun normally by the issue of a Writ of Summons within the period prescribed by the relevant statute. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the action was statute barred, it was also commenced by means of an Originating Summons instead of by a Writ of Summons. This was wrong in law and the trial Court should have struck out the action on that basis. (Eboigbe v. N.N.P.C. (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 347) 649; Sanda v. Kukawa Local Government (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 174) referred to). P.217 para. E-G)." (Underlining mine).

Even in the Supreme Court, an obiter dictum is clearly not binding on us or indeed on the Lower Courts, for obiter dicta, though they may have considerable weight, are not rationes decidendi and are therefore not conclusive authority and are not appealable.