STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON WHEN DECISION IN EARLIER CASE CAN BE USED IN A LATER CASE
Decisions of court draw their inspiration and strength from the facts which framed the issues for decision and once such decisions are made, they control future judgment in like or similar cases; hence the facts of two cases must either be the same or at least similar before a decision in the earlier case can be used in a later case.
Thus, where the facts and circumstances in both cases are not similar or the same, the inferior court is not bound by the principle decided in the case before the higher court. It is improper to try and force the ratio of a case on facts to which it cannot be assimilated; the ratio of any case should not be pulled by the hair of the head and made to apply to cases where the surrounding circumstances are different. The decision of the Court of Appeal nullifying the proceedings conducted and the judgment delivered by the trial court was erroneous and perverse.
[Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 SC 75; C.D.C. (Nig.) Ltd v. SCOA (Nigeria) Ltd. (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) 300; State v. Solomon (2021) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1793) 301; Fawehinmi v. NBA (No 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 558; Ndu v. Onuaguluchi (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 625) 152; Anaedobe v. Ofodile (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 706) 365; Abubakar v. Nasumu (No 2) (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) 523; Elebule v. Faleke (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 375) 82; 7Up Bottling Co. Ltd v. Abiola & Sons Ltd (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 383) 257; Morton v. Balonwu (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 655) 87; Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 referred to.]
(Pp. 337-338, paras. D-B)