My humble view is that the word “interlocutory” simply means “(of an order, judgment, appeal, etc) interim or temporary; not constituting a final resolution of the whole controversy.” A “ruling” is “the outcome of a Court’s decision either on some points of law or on the case as a whole.” See Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th edition, pages 889 and 1450.
— J.T. Tur, JCA. Abdulkardir Abacha v Kurastic [2014] – CA/A/406/2010
SHARE ON
As departure from a decision of a court or overruling a decision of a court is a very major judicial exercise, which if done often will ruin or jeopardise the stable rules of judicial precedent, and particularly the rules of stare decisis, courts of law, even the highest court of the land, will not yield to the invitation of counsel just for the asking, in the sense that the case sought to be overruled is not in favour of the party. In asking for a case to be overruled, the party should take into account or consideration, the totality of the decision, meaning that the ratio decidendi must be considered along with the facts of the case. The party should also make a distinction, if any, in the case between a ratio decidendi and an obiter dictum. If a party’s worry is an obiter dictum, a court of law will not depart from its earlier judgment or overrule it because obiter does not ipso facto have or possess any force in the judgment. And when I say this I am not ignorant of the law that obiter dictum of this Court followed by this Court in certain instances could ripen into a ratio decidendi by frequent adoption.
— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008
The decision of a trial Court would not be set aside merely because this Court would have employed a different procedure for the evaluation of the evidence, drawn different inferences and reached different conclusion on some or even all of the facts. The important thing is that the decision of a trial Court can be apparently supported by the evidence placed before it.
– M.L. Garba JCA. Odogwu v. Vivian (2009) – CA/PH/345/05
The true position of the law is that an order of a court whether it is to preserve the status quo or an executory order as such as the instant interim order to restore the name of the 1st respondent in the list of candidates for the aforesaid election clearly being an interim order with a mandatory character cannot be determined simply by looking at the form of the application or cause (from which it is generated) in order conclusively to say whether it is final or interlocutory but has further to be scrutinized from the view point of its intrinsic nature that is to say the nature of the order itself vis-a-vis the rights of the parties in the suit. It is furthermore my view that whether or not the instant order is final or interlocutory does not affect it being all the same a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction to be obeyed.
— C.M. Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC. Kubor v. Dickson (2012) – SC.369/2012
A decision of a court (whether wrong or right) remains valid and subsisting until set aside by a court that has the jurisdiction to do so. – E.A. Agim, JCA. Ogidi v. Okoli [2014] – CA/AK/130/2012
In Ebba vs. Ogodo (1984) 4 SC 372. The apex court had this to say:- “Unless the Court of Appeal finds that the decision is perverse, the Court of Appeal, whose opportunity is confined to printed record, is obliged to, and must accord to the finding of fact, by the trial court, the greatest weight and due respect.”
I shall now consider what really was decided in these two cases and see if the principles of those decisions (not the dicta) apply to the facts and circumstances of the case now on appeal.
– Oputa, JSC. Green v. Green (1987)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry