LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Obiter dicta in previous decisions and stare decisis – Distinction Between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta in Precedent
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Observations in a judgment on a point not directly arising from the facts of the case are obiter dicta and do not form part of the ratio decidendi; they are not binding as precedent.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Afro-Continental Nigeria Ltd v. Ayantuyi & Ors (1995) NLC-3231990(SC) at pp. 29--31; Paras E--B.
"A close study of the facts in the Kotoye case clearly reveals that the application concerned a motion ex parte for an interim order of injunction as against the application in the present appeal which is in respect of a motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction, the applicable governing principles of which are not entirely the same in both cases. ... Consequently, I am prepared to hold and it is my view that the observations in the judgment of this court in the Kotoye case on the necessity of an undertaking as to damages in applications for interlocutory injunction and the consequences of failure to extract such an undertaking are clear obiter dicta and cannot qualify as any part of the rationes decidendi in the case."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Obiter dicta are observations not necessary for the decision. They are not binding as precedent. The ratio decidendi is the principle necessary to decide the case. The principle applies to all judgments. The court must distinguish between ratio and obiter. Obiter may be persuasive but not binding. The rule prevents the expansion of precedent beyond the actual decision. The court will examine the facts of the earlier case. The principle ensures that only necessary legal principles are binding. The court may depart from obiter dicta. The rule promotes accurate use of precedent.