CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Supreme Court — Constitution of Court — Application of Previously Interpreted Constitutional Provisions
Principle Statement
Where a constitutional provision has been authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court in previous decisions, the court is at liberty to apply that settled interpretation without the need to reconstitute itself in a larger panel.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Tabai, JSC, in Associated Discount House Ltd v. Amalgamated Trustees Ltd No 2 (2007) NLC-123-289-2002(SC) at p. 18; Paras C–D.
"Having regard to the fact that the self same issue has been decided by this court in some previous decisions, I hold that the court was at liberty to hear the appeal with the normal and regular panel of five justices on 6/2/2006. And I hold therefore that the subsequent judgment on 5/5/2006 is not unconstitutional."
Explanation / Scope
The requirement for a seven-justice panel under Section 234 of the Constitution applies to cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation. However, where the constitutional point has already been settled by prior decisions of the court, there is no need to empanel seven justices. The court can follow its own precedents without reconstituting. This promotes judicial efficiency and avoids unnecessary expense and delay, while still upholding the principle that only the Supreme Court can definitively interpret the Constitution.
