PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to determine hypothetical or academic questions. Resolution of an apparent conflict between earlier decisions is not necessary for the determination of the appeal if the facts do not require it.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Adio, JSC, in Awojugbagbe Light Industries Limited v. Chinukwe & Anor (1995) NLC-2431992(SC) at pp. 64–65; Paras B–D.
"The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to determine hypothetical or academic questions. ... The resolution of an apparent conflict between two earlier decisions (Savannah Bank v. Ajilo and Solanke v. Abed) was not necessary for the determination of the instant appeal because the Governor's consent was obtained in this case, unlike in those cases."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Courts decide only live controversies. Hypothetical or academic questions will not be entertained. The principle applies even if the question is important. The court must determine whether the issue is necessary for the resolution of the appeal. The rule promotes judicial efficiency. The court will not act as an advisory body. The appellant must show that the issue directly affects the outcome. The principle prevents the court from opining on abstract legal questions. The court may decline to resolve conflicts not essential to the decision.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE