LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JUDICIAL PRECEDENT – Benefits of Following Previous Decisions
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Standing by a previous decision which has not been proved to be perverse, or to have been decided per incuriam or proved to be faulty legally or procedurally has a lot of advantages. It fosters stability and enhances the development of a consistent and coherent body of law. In addition, it preserves continuity and manifest respect for the past. It also assures equality of treatment for litigants similarly situated. It likewise spares the Judges the task of reexamining rules of law or principles, with each succeeding case, and finally it affords the law a desirable measure of predictability.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Oputa, JSC, in Eperokun v. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 162 at p. 193, cited with approval in Global Transport Oceanico S.A. & Anor v. Free Enterprises Nig. Ltd. (2001) NLC-128331998(SC) at p. 14; Paras D–A (p. 15).
"Standing by a previous decision which has not been proved to be perverse, or to have been decided per incuriam or proved to be faulty legally or procedurally has a lot of advantages. It fosters stability and enhances the development of a consistent and coherent body of law. In addition, it preserves continuity and manifest respect for the past. It also assures equality of treatment for litigants similarly situated. It likewise spares the Judges the task of reexamining rules of law or principles, with each succeeding case, and finally it affords the law a desirable measure of predictability."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Following precedent offers multiple benefits: stability, consistency, coherence of law, continuity, respect for the past, equal treatment for similarly situated litigants, judicial efficiency (sparing judges from re-examining settled principles), and predictability. These benefits justify stare decisis unless the previous decision is perverse, per incuriam, or legally/procedurally faulty. The doctrine serves institutional legitimacy. Litigants can plan their affairs knowing the law is settled. Courts avoid reinventing the wheel with each case. Equality before the law requires like cases be treated alike. The benefits outweigh the occasional perpetuation of error, which can be corrected by higher courts or legislation.