Stare Decisis

Stare Decisis is a latin term that refers to the doctrine of precedent, which obliges judges to make certain court decisions according to previous rulings made by a higher court in the same type of case. It literally means “Stay by Things Decided.” The purpose of Stare Decisis is to promote consistent, predictable rulings on cases of similar nature. The principle of Stare Decisis has imposed an obligation on lower courts to be bound by the decisions of higher courts, (i.e appellate and supreme courts). For instance, when a lower court is faced with the construction of a rule in pari material with one that has been constructed by a higher court, the lower court has no option, but to follow the principle laid down by the higher court in its construction of that rule. The lower court has no business with whether or not the decision of the higher court is right or wrong.
In the hierarchy of courts, one principle has been established, and that is, that the lower court is bound by the decision of the higher. The refusal of lower courts not to follow similar decisions of higher courts in similar cases, has been described by some judges as judicial rascality. In the case of Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 843) 310, it was held that the doctrine of judicial precedent otherwise known as stare decisis is well rooted in Nigerian jurisprudence. It is a well settled principle of judicial policy which must be strictly adhered to by lower courts. The supreme court in that case noted that the refusal of the trial judge to follow and apply the supreme court decision in the case of Onouha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCLNR 244, amounted to judicial impertinence, gross insubordination and such a judicial officer is a misfit in the judiciary.
The supreme court is also bound by its own previous decisions. However in Witt and Busch Ltd v. Dale Power System Plc (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt 1062) 1 Sc, it was held that the supreme court can only depart from its previous decision based on the grounds of inconsistency with the constitution, error in law or where the decision was reached per incuriam, or where such decision may occasion injustice.
Stare decisis has helped to maintain consistency, stability, and a high degree of certainty in the practice of the courts. It has saved time and energy of the court. This doctrine has succeeded in keeping justice and fairness, ensuring that citizens are treated as equals before the law. It has also helped to maintain the ethics of the legal profession. For some persons, liberty to decide each case as you think right is better than the doctrine of stare decisis. But in my view, liberty to decide each case as you think right, without regard to principles laid down in previous similar cases, would only result in a completely uncertain law in which no citizen will know his rights or liabilities until he appears before a judge and decision is made.

Nkechi Bright Ewere