"The law on this issue is firmly settled and allows for no exercise of discretion by this court. Without seeking guidance from anywhere else, it is certainly the practice hinged on the hierarchy of courts and stare decisis that lower courts must abide by the decisions of higher courts as deliberate refusal to be so bound amounts to judicial impertinence, which according to the decision in IMB LTD v PTF [2006] 5 NWLR (PT 974) 463, is capable of enthroning judicial rascality and anarchy in the judicial hierarchy. See also UNILAG & Ors v Olaniyan & ors (1985) 1 SC 295, where the Apex Court, per ESO, JSC stated quite succinctly as follows:

"When a lower Court is faced with the construction of rule in pari material with one that has been construed by this Court, the lower Court has no option but to follow the principle laid down by this Court in it construction of that rule. What will be left for the lower court is to apply the laws laid down by this Court to the peculiar facts of the case before. The lower Court has no business with whether or not the decision of this Court therein was right or wrong. In the hierarchy of Courts, one principle has been established beyond par, and that is, that lower Court is bound by decision of the higher Court."

PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. In the case of ABIGAIL ROLAKE BELLO & ORS VS ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE PLC & ORS APPEAL NO: CA/L/61/2013 ; LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: LER[2019] CA/L/61/2013