Understanding Judicial Inconsistencies in Nigerian Case Law by Lawson Akhigbe

The doctrine of stare decisis—Latin for “to stand by things decided”—is a cornerstone of common law systems, including Nigeria’s, which inherited its legal framework from England. It mandates that courts follow precedents set by higher or equal courts in similar cases to ensure consistency, predictability, and fairness in the administration of justice. However, in practice, Nigerian jurisprudence has been plagued by inconsistencies, where courts, including the Supreme Court, deliver conflicting decisions on similar facts or legal principles. This undermines the doctrine’s purpose, leading to what legal scholars often describe as a “judicial lottery.” Such inconsistencies can arise from various factors: differing interpretations of statutes (e.g., the Evidence Act, 2011, or the Electoral Act, 2022), failure to explicitly overrule prior decisions, judicial oversights (e.g., not addressing constitutional implications), political pressures in high-stakes cases, or even the composition of judicial panels. These issues are exacerbated in a multi-tiered court system with concurrent jurisdictions, where lower courts sometimes issue conflicting orders before appeals consolidate matters.

From multiple angles, these inconsistencies erode public confidence in the judiciary, complicate legal advice for practitioners, and can perpetuate injustice by allowing litigants to “forum shop” for favorable rulings. Nuances include the Supreme Court’s self-imposed rule to depart from precedents only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., if decided per incuriam—through oversight—or if it leads to manifest injustice), yet this is not always followed rigorously. Implications extend to economic stability (e.g., land disputes affecting investments), democratic processes (e.g., election uncertainties), and the rule of law, potentially fostering perceptions of bias or corruption. Edge cases involve politically sensitive matters, where expedited rulings amplify errors, while related considerations include calls for judicial reforms, such as better training, digitized case reporting, or mandatory full-court sittings for overruling precedents.

Below, I outline key examples of such inconsistencies, drawn from prominent areas like evidence admissibility, procedural competence, and election disputes. These are structured by theme for clarity, with historical context, specific case details, conflicts highlighted, and broader implications discussed.

1. Admissibility of Unregistered Registrable Land Instruments

One of the most cited examples of Supreme Court inconsistency involves the admissibility of unregistered deeds of conveyance or other land instruments under state Land Instruments Registration Laws (e.g., Section 20 of the Rivers State law or equivalents in other states). Historically, Nigerian courts held that such instruments must be registered to be admissible as evidence of title, stemming from colonial-era laws and reinforced by post-independence precedents. This ensured public notice of land transactions and prevented fraud.

• Pre-2018 Position (Consistent Line of Authority): In cases like Ojugbele v. Olasoji (1982) 4 SC 31 and Akintola v. Solano (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) 598, the Supreme Court ruled that unregistered registrable instruments are inadmissible to prove title or equitable interest in land but could be admitted for limited purposes, such as proving a transaction or payment (e.g., as a receipt). This was purpose-dependent admissibility, aligning with state laws mandating registration. This position was reiterated in Ole v. Ekede (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 187) 569, emphasizing that failure to register renders the document void for proving ownership.
• Benjamin v. Kalio (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38: In a landmark full-panel decision (7 justices), the Supreme Court departed from this, holding that unregistered instruments are fully admissible to prove title. The reasoning pivoted on constitutional supremacy: Since the 1979 Constitution (and retained in the 1999 Constitution, as amended), “evidence” is Item on the Exclusive Legislative List, making it a federal matter governed solely by the Evidence Act, 2011. State laws purporting to regulate admissibility (e.g., requiring registration) were deemed void for inconsistency, constituting “legislative trespass.” This overruled prior authorities on constitutional grounds, prioritizing federal uniformity over state-specific registration requirements.
• Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019) LPELR-47384(SC): Just a year later, the Supreme Court reverted to the pre-2018 position without referencing Benjamin v. Kalio. It held that unregistered instruments are inadmissible for proving title but admissible for proving transactions or payments. The Court relied on older precedents like Ole v. Ekede, ignoring the constitutional analysis in the prior case. This created direct conflict, as Benjamin was a full-court decision (typically binding), yet Abdullahi impliedly overruled it without explanation.

Nuances and Implications: Scholars debate whether Abdullahi overruled Benjamin (some argue the cases are not in pari materia—on identical facts), but the lack of explicit overruling leaves lower courts in limbo. In practice, lawyers must argue based on the “latest” decision under stare decisis (as per Okafor v. Nweke), but this fosters unpredictability in land disputes, a critical sector in Nigeria where land is a primary asset. Edge cases include instruments with discrepancies (e.g., mismatched dates in Abdullahi), amplifying evidentiary challenges. Broader reforms suggested include Supreme Court guidelines for overruling to avoid such “controversy within.”

2. Competence of Originating Processes Signed in a Law Firm’s Name

Procedural rules require court processes to be signed by a qualified legal practitioner, not a firm, to ensure accountability. Inconsistencies here highlight tensions between strict compliance and substantive justice.

• Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521 and FBN v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444: The Supreme Court held that originating processes (e.g., writs or notices) signed in a firm’s name are incompetent and void ab initio, rendering the suit a nullity. This was reaffirmed as a jurisdictional defect, emphasizing technical adherence to the Legal Practitioners Act.
• Recent Conflicts: Olowe v. Aluko and Menakaya v. Ezim (circa 2025): In these decisions, the Supreme Court appeared to soften or contradict the strict rule, allowing such processes in certain contexts, throwing the jurisprudence into “a sea of controversy.” This departure without explicit overruling creates uncertainty on whether the defect is curable or fatal.

Nuances and Implications: The conflict reflects a broader debate on technicalities vs. justice—strict rules prevent abuse but can dismiss meritorious cases. In politically charged suits, this leads to dismissals on form rather than merit, eroding trust. Related considerations include calls from Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) for reforms to clarify such procedural pitfalls.

3. Inconsistencies in Election Petitions

Election matters are sui generis (unique), meant to prioritize substance over technicalities, yet conflicting decisions abound, often due to varying interpretations of the Electoral Act.

• Pre-Hearing Procedures: Conflicting Court of Appeal panels have diverged on Paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), regarding initiating pre-hearing sessions. Some require strict timelines, leading to dismissals, while others allow flexibility, resulting in inconsistent outcomes across divisions (e.g., Port Harcourt vs. Lagos).
• Technicalities in Accreditation: Fayemi v. Oni (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1222) 326: The Court of Appeal nullified elections in Ekiti wards because voter accreditation used red biro instead of blue, as per INEC manuals—a hyper-technical ruling. Contrast with Amosun v. Daniel (Ogun Governorship), where similar expert evidence issues were handled differently, highlighting panel-dependent outcomes.
• Ambiguous Judgments: INEC v. Musa (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806) 72: The Supreme Court’s ruling on INEC’s powers in party registrations led to multiple interpretations, requiring clarifications and causing political chaos.

Nuances and Implications:

These conflicts, often in post-election disputes, can delay governance and incite unrest (e.g., in Akwa Ibom or Benue). Edge cases involve concurrent jurisdiction, where tribunals and appeals overlap. Reforms could include unified election benches to minimize variances.

4. Conflicting Ex Parte Orders in Political Disputes

Lower courts frequently issue conflicting interim orders, exacerbating higher-court inconsistencies.

• Kano Emirate Tussle (2024): Justice A.M. Liman (Federal High Court) suspended the Kano Emirate Council Repeal Law, affirming Aminu Ado Bayero as Emir, while Justice Amina Aliyu (State High Court) upheld Muhammadu Sanusi II’s reinstatement. A third order from Justice S.A. Amobeda reinforced Liman’s, creating a web of conflicts.
• Rivers State LG Elections (2024): Justice I. Igwe (State High Court) ordered INEC to release voter registers for RSIEC elections, clashing with federal restraints in related suits.

Nuances and Implications: These stem from coordinate jurisdictions and political interference, undermining judicial integrity. Broader effects include public disillusionment and calls for NJC sanctions. In summary, while stare decisis aims for stability, these examples illustrate systemic challenges, urging reforms like precedent databases and ethical oversight for sustained judicial credibility.