LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION – Conclusiveness of Judgments – Public Policy Basis for Finality
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It would at least be against public policy for persons, without the backing of the court, to pronounce a court decision a nullity, act in breach of the decision whereas others may set out to obey it. In my respectful view it is not only desirable but necessary to have such decisions set aside first by another court before any act is built upon it...
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Babatunde & Ors v. Olatunji & Anor (2000) NLC-1481995(SC) at p. 7; Paras A–B, adopting Eso, JSC's dictum in Oba Aladegbemi v. Oba Fasanmade (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.81) 129.
"It would at least be against public policy for persons, without the backing of the court, to pronounce a court decision a nullity, act in breach of the decision whereas others may set out to obey it. In my respectful view it is not only desirable but necessary to have such decisions set aside first by another court before any act is built upon it..."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Public policy requires that court decisions be set aside by another court before being disregarded. Allowing parties to pronounce decisions nullities and act in breach would cause disorder—some obeying, others disobeying. The orderly administration of justice demands that validity challenges be resolved judicially. This principle maintains respect for judicial authority and ensures consistent application of court orders. No matter how erroneous a judgment appears, the proper course is appellate review, not unilateral nullification. Finality and order outweigh individual perceptions of error.