APPELLATE PRACTICE — Overruling Precedent — Conditions to be Met — Burden on Applicant
Ratio Decidendi
Per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, in Bakare v. NRC (2007) NLC-123-51-2002(SC) at pp. 21–22; Paras E–A:
"Where this court is minded to overrule its previous decision. It must be showed according to the cited case that the earlier decision is wrong or erroneous in law or that it is per incuriam or that it has become an instrument of injustice. The appellant has urged this court follow in this regard the footsteps in Adisa v. Oyinwole (supra) which this court has overruled it's earlier decisions as showed herein. It is alleged that Section 83(1) of the NRC Act has turned into a monster not only to itself but also has become an instrument of injustice as in the instant case."
Explanation / Scope
This principle governs the doctrine of stare decisis in the apex court. While the Supreme Court is not strictly bound by its own decisions, it exercises the power to overrule sparingly and only in clear cases. The applicant must discharge the heavy burden of establishing one of the recognised exceptions: that the previous decision was given without proper legal basis (per incuriam), that it is patently erroneous, or that its continued application produces manifest injustice. The court will not overrule simply because another view is possible. The principle ensures stability and predictability in the law while allowing for correction of grave errors.