PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

A tribunal charged with the performance of judicial functions should normally state reasons for its conclusions. This becomes more important where appeals lie from its decisions. Even without the likelihood of appeal, it makes for open and even-handed justice for reasons to be given. To decide without reasons leaves room for arbitrariness and leaves the parties in the dark as to how the decision of the tribunal is arrived at.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ayoola, JSC, in Agbanelo v. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. (2000) NLC-201997(SC) at p. 3; Paras E–A.
"A tribunal charged with the performance of judicial functions should normally state reasons for its conclusions. This becomes more important where appeals lie from its decisions. Even without the likelihood of appeal, it makes for open and even-handed justice for reasons to be given. To decide without reasons leaves room for arbitrariness and leaves the parties in the dark as to how the decision of the tribunal is arrived at."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Judicial tribunals must state reasons for their decisions. This requirement is essential for appeals—parties must know why they lost to pursue appellate review. Even without appeal, reasoned decisions ensure open justice, transparency, and accountability. Deciding without reasons invites arbitrariness and denies parties understanding of how conclusions were reached. Reasons demonstrate that the decision results from judicial reasoning, not caprice. This principle underpins fair hearing and the integrity of judicial process. Unexplained decisions are fundamentally flawed.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE