Stare Decisis

The principle is correct and it is in tandem with the principle of stare decis which is a rule of adherence to judicial precedents. It postulates that when a point or principle of law has been officially decided or settled by a ruling or pronouncement 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 tribunal, or by those who are bound to follow its adjudications, unless there be urgent reasons and in exceptional cases. Critics of this principle argue that strict adherence to old decisions may result in grave injustices in the ever changing social and political situations. The need to do substantial justice in every case to the Court, the accused person, the victim of crime and the general public seems to favour the stance that where strict or dogmatic adherence to precedent is mere arcane technicality that defeats justice, pragmatism demands a balance between the extremities. Our jurisprudence is shifting from adhering to mere technicality designed to defeat the course of justice. Thus as stated by Wali, JSC, in SHUAIBU v. NIGERIA-ARAB BANK LTD. (1998) 4 SC 170; (1998) 5 NWLR (pt.551) 582; "the prime duty of any Court in taking any decision is to do justice. The wheel of justice could no longer be allowed to be clogged with technicalities."

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. 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. See:Albion Construction Ltd. Vs R.A.O. Inv. & Prod. Ltd. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.219) 583.