LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JUDICIAL PRECEDENT — Ratio Decidendi — Distinction Between Ratio and Obiter Dicta
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is very important for counsel to bear in mind that a case is the only authority for what is actually decided. It is only the ratio decidendi of a Supreme Court judgment that binds the court and the lower courts, and not obiter dicta in concurring judgments.It is very important for counsel to bear in mind that a case is the only authority for what is actually decided. It is only the ratio decidendi of a Supreme Court judgment that binds the court and the lower courts, and not obiter dicta in concurring judgments.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Obasanjo & Ors v. Yusuf & Anor (2004) NLC-1932003(SC) at p. 18; Paras D–E.
"It is very important for counsel to bear in mind always, that a case is the only authority for what is actually decided. In other words, it is only the 'ratio decidendi' of a Supreme Court judgment that binds the court and the lower courts, and not 'obiter dicta' in concurring judgments."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Only the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision) is binding precedent. The principle applies to judicial precedent. Obiter dicta (statements made in passing) are not binding. The rule ensures that only essential legal principles are followed. Counsel must distinguish between ratio and obiter. The principle is well-established.