GROUP H PRESENTATION

With the aid of relevant cases, discuss the circumstances under which the supreme court can depart
from its previous decisions

INTRODUCTION

The supreme court is the highest court in Nigeria since 1963 as established in section 254(1) of the 1999
constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria. Due to the status of the supreme court as the highest
court in Nigeria its decisions are binding on all lower courts, this was stated in section 236 (as amended)
in the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, the decisions of the supreme court are
binding on lower courts which includes federal court of appeal, the federal high court and the state high
court. However the supreme court can depart from its previous decision under the following situations:

1) WHERE THE DECISION WAS GIVEN PER INCURIAM the term per incuriam is a Latin phrase that means
through lack of care or by reason of carelessness.in the legal context it refer to a judgement or
decision made by a court that has overlooked relevant statutes, prcedents, or principle of law.
These decisions are usually upheld based on the presumption that the judge knows the law An
example of a decision made per incuriam can be seen in the case of Ngwo v. Monye .

In the case of Ngwo and Monye , they were parties to a land dispute, the trial court of appeal
had ruled in favor of Ngwo , Monye then appealed to the supreme court, the supreme court
initially upheld the decision of the lower court (trial court of appeal). However the supreme
court reconsidered its decision and set aside the earlier judgment , departing from its previous
decision.
In the aforementioned case the decision reached per incuriam was that the
supreme court’s earlier decision in 1970 was given without the knowledge that the case of
epkendu v Erika in 1959 had been nullified .

2) WHERE THE DECISION IS FOUND TO BE SIMPLY ERRONEOUS This simply refers to a situation where a
courts decision is flawed, unjust, and incorrect and may be subject to appeal or reversal as seen
in the case of Maurice Goualin ltd & Anor v Wahabi Atanda Aminu

In the case mentioned above the court considered the age of the recital with reference to the date of
the proceedings disregarding the phrase “at the date of the contract” in section 129 of the evidence
act.The decision was considered erroneous and made per incuriam as it overlooked the words of the
section that prescribe measuring the age of the recital with reference to a determinate contract.
However in a subsequent case the judgment was reversed specifically in the case of Johnson v
Lawason , the case established that the age of the recital in the document should be measured with
reference to a determinate contract as stated in section 129 of the evidence act

3) WHERE THE DECISION IS CAPABLE OF PERPETUATING INJUSTICE To perpetuate injustice means allowing
an unjust situation, decision, system or policy to persist for example prosecutorial misconduct or
 over reach, legislative inactions, law enforcement biases or brutalities, systemic inequalities or
discrimination and judicial decisions that uphold unjust laws as in Abdul Karim v Incar (Nig) ltd

The case revolves around a contractual agreement between the parties. The appellant Abdul Karim,
purchased two lorry vehicles from the respondent Incar (Nig) ltd on hire purchase terms, the agreement
included a clause that allowed the respondent to repossess the vehicles if the appellant defaulted on
payments , the appellant made some payments but eventually defaulted, leading the respondent to
repossess the vehicles. The appellant brought an action against the respondent, seeking the return of
the vehicles or their market value, alleging that the respondent had wrongfully repossessed them.

The main issue in the dispute was whether the respondent had rightfully repossessed the
vehicles under the terms of hire purchase agreement or if the repossession was wrongful. The high court
ruled in favor of the respondent. The court of appeal upheld the high court’s decision , leading the
appellant to appeal to the supreme court . The supreme court’s decision, which departed from its
earlier stance in Lauwers Import-export v Jozebson Industrial ltd., focused on the jurisdictional issue of
whether the court could hear the appeal without leave from the lower courts.

The court then proceeded to consider the merits of the case, ultimately ruling in favour of the
respondent and affirming the lower courts’ decisions. The court held that the respondent had rightfully
repossessed the vehicles under terms of higher purchase agreement.

Also in the case of Aqua ltd v Ondo State Sports Council (1988) perpetuated injustice in the following
ways

*Technicality over justice: the supreme court’s decision to dismiss the appeal based on a technicality
(lack of leave of appeal) rather than considering the merits of the case, prioritized procedural formality
over substantive justice.

*Denial to access of justice: by upholding the preliminary objection, the court effectively denied Aqua
Limited its right to have its grievance heard on the merits, thereby limiting access to justice.

However the supreme court held that section 220(1)(a) confers a right of appeal without leave
(permission) in civil matters from final decision of a high court sitting to the court of appeal where the
amount of the dispute is at least N1000. This means that a party dissatisfied with a high court decision
in such a case can automatically appeal to the court of appeal.

4) WHERE IT WOULD CURTAIL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to curtail constitutional rights simply means the
act of restricting or limiting the rights, freedoms and privileges of citizen(s) that are enshrined in
a Nations constitution or statutes an example can be seen in the case of Lakanmi v. A-G
(Western Region) (1971)

The court originally held in a previous similar case that the right to freedom of movement guaranteed by
Section 25 of the Constitution includes the right of a person to remain in a place of his choice.
However, The Supreme Court departed from its previous precedent after the consideration of
constitutional rights, holding that the right to freedom of movement did not extend to the right to
remain in the country. The court ruled that the government had the power to deport non-citizens and
persons whose presence was deemed not to be conducive to the public good.

This decision was reached after the Supreme Court realized that this precedent curtailed the power of
the government to deport non-citizens and persons deemed undesirable, which was essential for
national security and public interest.

5. ON THE GROUND OF PUBLIC POLICY. A courts decision can be reversed if it proves to be contrary to
established public policies such as environmental, economic, social, educational and security.

This was very predominant in the case of of Associated electrical industries Ltd. V. Alaja (1968) where
the supreme Court had to depart from a decision it made prior in the case of Lewis v. Bello (1965).
Where it had originally held that a master was not liable for the wrongful actions of the servant unless
he had authorized or ratified them.

In the current case however, the court was forced to depart from its original precedent on
considerations of public policy. During the court proceeding of Associated electrical industries Ltd. V.
Alaja in 1968, which was a very similar case as to that of Lewis v. Bello in 1965, The Supreme Court held
that this rule was no longer in line with modern public policy, as it was unjust and inhumane to deny a
victim of a servant's wrongful act a remedy against the master. Therefore, the court adopted the more
modern and humane approach of vicarious liability, where a master is liable for the wrongful acts of his
servant committed in the course of his employment. This departure from original precedent was done in
an attempt of the court to align the law with modern social and economic conditions and to provide a
more just and effective remedy for victims of wrongful acts. Thus basing it's current decision on public
policy and how best to uphold and enhance it.

6. WHERE IT CONTRADICTS LEGAL PRINCIPLE The supreme court may consider recalling it's previously
decided precendencts when it has proven to have an inverse relationship with the established legal
principles. Examples of legal principles can be expressly seen in section 33 which ensures that citizens
are treated fairly, equally and justly with respect to their rights and freedoms.

When a court decision contradicts a legal principle, it means that the ruling or judgment goes against a
well-established legal rule, doctrine, or precedent. In other words, the court's decision deviates from the
expected outcome based on the existing legal framework. The Supreme Court can deviate from its
original decision when said decision has been thought to contradict legal principle.

This is much notable in the case of HON. BAYO ADEGBO v HON. GODWIN OSIYI (SC. 532/2015) [2017]
NGSC 16 (1 June 2017), the Supreme Court had previously held that service of the notice of appeal on
the respondent was not a condition precedent to the exercise of the court's jurisdiction. The court
reconsidered its stance as it contradicted the fundamental legal principle of fair hearing, which is
constitutionally guaranteed in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
The original decision contravened the principle of fair hearing, as it denied the respondent the right to
be informed and participate in the appeal process.

The Supreme Court departed from its previous precedent, holding that service of the notice of appeal on
the respondent is a condition precedent to the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, and failure to do so
renders the appeal incompetent.

As originally stated, despite the Supreme Court being the highest court in Nigeria as stated in section
254(1) of the constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria with its decisions binding on all other courts
in the country, in some rare cases (such as the ones listed above ) the court has the explicit right to
deviate from its original precedent and reach new decisions based on current cases in order to ensure
equity and Justice in the carrying out of it's duties and also the in words of Okuta Panel JSC, he said that
the Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible rather it is infallible because it is final.