Background
The appellants, led by Chief (Hon) Nkwo Nnabuchi and thirty-three others, instituted an action in the Federal High Court, Enugu Division, under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules. They sought enforcement of their rights to human dignity, personal liberty and movement under sections 34, 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution; an order restraining the seventh to fourteenth respondents from arresting or detaining them; general damages of ₦999 million for unlawful detention; and a perpetual injunction against any future unconstitutional arrest or detention.
After initial counsel withdrew and new counsel took over, the trial court was informed that the court lacked jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction with an award of ₦10,000 costs on 2004-06-08. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, which allowed the appeal, held that the Federal High Court and State High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over fundamental rights cases and substituted an order striking out the suit without costs.
Dissatisfied with a remark on jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the appellants filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the obiter dictum that both Federal and State High Courts share concurrent jurisdiction to hear fundamental rights cases.
Issues
- Whether the appellants’ appeal is competent when it attacks an obiter dictum rather than the ratio decidendi of the lower court’s decision.
- Whether an appeal can lie against a mere passing remark (obiter dictum) of a court.
- Whether an appeal must be predicated on the legal principle (ratio decidendi) of the decision appealed against, and the effect of deviating from that ratio.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio decidendi refers to the legal principle or reasoning upon which a court’s decision is based. Obiter dictum comprises comments or observations made in passing that do not form the basis for the decision. An appeal can only challenge the ratio decidendi, not an obiter dictum. This distinction is settled under the doctrine of judicial precedent:
- The ratio decidendi is binding on lower courts.
- An obiter dictum is not binding and not appealable.
- An appeal not directed at the ratio decidendi is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court, led by Abiru JSC, reviewed definitions and authorities from Nigerian law:
- Okpeji v. Minister of Agriculture (1997) defines ratio decidendi and obiter dictum.
- Agbabiaka v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2020) confirms that appeals cannot lie against obiter dictum.
- National Democratic Party v. INEC (2013) holds that opinions or baseless remarks not forming part of the decision are not appealable.
The Court observed that the appellants’ complaint was confined to a passing remark by the Court of Appeal on concurrent jurisdiction. That remark did not constitute the basis for the lower court’s order striking out the suit. It was thus an obiter dictum, and the appeal did not impugn the ratio decidendi. Consequently, the appeal was incompetent.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court unanimously struck out the appeal as an abuse of process. It held that only an aggrieved person can appeal, an appeal must challenge the ratio decidendi, and an appeal against an obiter dictum is incompetent. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
Significance
This decision underscores the critical distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dictum in appellate practice. It reaffirms that:
- Grounds of appeal must target the legal principle on which the decision is based.
- Obiter dicta, however instructive, cannot give rise to an appeal.
- Pursuing appeals on non-binding remarks constitutes an abuse of court process.
The ruling serves as a caution to practitioners to carefully identify and challenge only those aspects of a judgment that are essential to the decision, thereby preserving judicial time and resources.