LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Judicial Precedent – Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The ratio decidendi in a case is that where a plaintiff is held to lack locus standi to maintain their action, this finding goes to the jurisdiction of the court and denies it jurisdiction to determine the action; the proper order to make in such a situation is to strike out the action and not dismiss it; this decision is binding on the Supreme Court as well as on all other courts below it.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The ratio decidendi in the case [Oloriode v. Oyebi] is that where a plaintiff is held to lack the locus standi to maintain his action, this finding goes to the jurisdiction of the court and denies it jurisdiction to determine the action; the proper order to make in such a situation is to strike out the action and not dismiss it. This decision is binding on this Court as well as on all other courts below it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The ratio decidendi (binding principle) of precedent must be identified and distinguished from obiter dicta (non-binding observations). In Oloriode v. Oyebi, the ratio is: lack of locus standi is jurisdictional, requiring striking out, not dismissal. This ratio binds: the Supreme Court itself (horizontal stare decisis) and all lower courts (vertical stare decisis). The principle establishes: ratios from Supreme Court decisions bind all courts in Nigeria; courts must identify the actual ratio (the legal principle essential to the decision) versus dicta; and proper characterization of ratios ensures consistent application. Striking out versus dismissal matters because: striking out acknowledges jurisdictional defect without addressing merits; dismissal implies consideration of merits. This ratio governs all locus standi cases, requiring courts to strike out rather than dismiss when standing is lacking.