STARE DECISIS, COURT  

 

Admin2
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 144
10/10/2019 11:28 am  

MOGAJI v CADBURY (1985) 2 NWLR PT. 7 PG. 393 – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS DISCRETIONARY POWERS TO DEVIATE FROM THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN  MOGAJI v CADBURY (1985) 2 NWLR PT. 7 PG. 393


The Supreme Court case of Mogaji v Cadbury (Supra) , where the Ashade family were declared owners of the subject matter is still valid as the Supreme Court has not set aside that judgment, and it simply takes precedence over the High Court Judgments, even though they haven’t been appealed against.


The lower Court was bound by the decision and to exercise caution to join the Appellants with a view to see the issues at play clearer instead they were shut out. 


The doctrine of stare decisis strictly applies and the Court has no discretionary powers to deviate from the principles enunciated by the Apex Court.


See: Azubuogu v Oranezi (2017) 71 NSCQR. 214; AG Lagos State v Eko Hotels Ltd (2017) 72 NSCQR 228; Isa Kassim v State (2017) 71 NSCQR. 357".
 
 
PER A.O.OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A IN MRS. TITILOLA AWOSUSI & ORS v. CHIEF LIGALI KAFARU OTABIYI & ORS

Suit No: CA/L/438/2014


LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION:LER[2019]CA/L/438/2014


Quote
Share:
Views All Time
Views All Time
284276
Views Today
Views Today
105