As man
carries out his day to day interactions with his fellow man, there is likely to
be strife and disagreement amongst them. This necessitates the need for a
process of resolving these disputes. This is where the judiciary comes into
play. The judiciary is the body of judges in a jurisdiction that administers
justice according to the laws of the land. As law students, some of which are
likely to end up being judges, it is pertinent that we study the way legal
reasoning in the judicial process occurs.
Legal
reasoning in judicial process has been defined by A.O Sanni as
“The process
of careful thinking by a judicial officer in the course of resolving legal
issues presented by a party to a legal action before his court for
determination.”
In dealing
with the subject of legal reasoning in judicial process, I shall be
highlighting on the shifting of fact, shifting of law and judicial precedent.
SHIFTING
OF FACT
The facts of
a case are the versions of the story that has been accepted by the court after
being satisfactorily proved by the party on whom it lies to be proven.
Different parties at different times would have to establish their own version
of the fact before the court. The process by which the responsibility of
proving the fact moves from one party to another is called the shifting of
fact.
In civil
cases, the initial burden of proving a set of facts lies on the plaintiff. If
after proving his facts, the defendant disagrees with the plaintiff’s version,
the defendant would have to prove his own story. If the facts in issue are
admitted by both parties, those facts would be accepted by the court.
Thus,
according to the provision of S.136 (1) of the Evidence
Act 2011, the burden of proving any fact lies on the person who wants the
court to rely on those set of facts.
In criminal
cases, the burden rests on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The burden of proof doesn’t normally shift to the accused. This is
backed by the provision of S.36 (5) of the Constitution which
provides that in a criminal case, an accused would be presumed innocent until
proven guilty.
Also, in the
case of Okagbue vs Commissioner of Police (1969) NMLR 233, it
was held that in a criminal case, it is not for the accused to prove his
innocence. However, there are instances in which the accused has to prove his
innocence. They include:
- Where
the accused raises the defence of exemption or qualification from the provision
of law creating that offence; 139 (1) Evidence Act 2011.
- Where a
statute specifically places the burden of proof on the defendant.
- Where
special facts are within the knowledge of the accused; 140
Evidence Act 2011.
- Where the accused raises the defence of intoxication or insanity.
SHIFTING
OF LAW
Shifting of
law occurs in a situation in which one party relies on a law that is either
inapplicable or out of date. The burden of bringing this to limelight rests on
the party that knows about this flaw. If none of the parties know about the
flaw in the law, the burden of bringing this to limelight shifts to the judge.
This is due to the fact that juria novit curia (The court
knows the law). Also, ignorantia judicis est calamitias
innocientis (the ignorance of the judge is the calamity of the
innocent).
JUDICIAL
PRECEDENT
Judicial
precedent originates from the principle of stare decisis which
means ‘let the decision stand’. It means that similar cases must be treated
alike. The reason for this is to achieve uniformity and certainty in the
administration of justice. Judicial precedent has been defined in the case
of Global transport vs free enterprises Nigeria limited (2001) 2
SCNJ 224@243 as a golden rule in which decisions of higher courts
in the land are binding on lower courts. And decisions of courts of co-ordinate
jurisdiction are for all intents and purposes binding between these courts
except if the previous decision was made per incuriam.
It’s not all
the aspects of the judgement that are relevant in determining the principle
decided in a court. It is the ratio decidendi that is relevant
in determining the judicial precedent. However, the other parts of the
judgement are not entirely useless. The other parts of the judgement are
referred to as obiter dictum. Although an obiter dictum is
not really a present judgement, in a later case, it can be adopted as a ratio
decidendi.
With all these,
can it then be contended that judges make law? Yes, by all means, however,
their law is not legislation because it wasn’t passed by the national assembly.
Also, judicial precedents can either be binding or persuasive. Decisions made
by court of higher jurisdiction are binding on courts of lower jurisdiction.
However, decisions by court of co-ordinate jurisdiction are persuasive.
HIERARCHY
OF COURTS
The
hierarchy of courts is the arrangement of courts in the method through which
appeal flows. If judgement at the lower court is not satisfying, appeal can be
made to the higher court in order to get redress and justice. I would highlight
the courts starting from the lowest.
Magistrate
or District Courts
This is just
a single court, it transforms to a magistrate court in the hearing of a
criminal case while in the hearing of a civil case it becomes a district court.
These are courts that are regarded as courts of inferior jurisdiction. There
are a two adduced reasons for this. Firstly, it is not listed among the courts
in S.6 (5)(a) – (i) CFRN 1999 as amended. And section S.6
(3) provides that the courts that are mentioned in the previous
section are courts of superior record. By implication, courts that are not
mentioned are courts of inferior record. The second reason for this is that
they cannot punish contempt ex facci curria.
The
decisions of magistrate courts are bound by decisions of the higher courts but
their own decisions do not bind any court. Also, they are not bound any of
their previous decisions.
The High
Court/Sharia/Customary Court of Appeal
Directly
above the district/magistrate court are the High Courts, Customary Court of
Appeal and Sharia Court of Appeal. Pursuant to S.6 (5) CFRN 1999,
we have the Federal High Court, State High Court and High Court of the Federal
Capital Territory. Of these three, the State High Court has the widest
jurisdiction. It should be noted that Customary and Sharia Courts
of Appeal are not bound by judicial precedent. This is because they are not of
common law origin. Also, they hear appeal on cases from the Area courts. While
the High Courts hear appeals from the magistrate court.
These courts
are referred to as courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction therefore they are not
bound by previous decisions of another High Court. At best, the decision of one
High Court is persuasive on another High Court. However, it is not expected for
a High Court to depart from another High Court’s decision except in good cause.
A State High
Court has wide jurisdiction unlike a federal High Court which has a more
limited jurisdiction as provided in S.251 of the constitution.
Thus, if a state High Court makes a decision on a matter of federal
application, it binds all magistrate courts in the country. If it makes a
decision on matters of state application, it only binds courts of inferior
jurisdiction in the state.
COURT OF
APPEAL
Directly
above the High Court is the Court of Appeal. There is only one Court of Appeal
in Nigeria but it has different divisions over the country. Thus, decisions by
the Court of Appeal in Ilorin division is treated as its own decision in the
Court of Appeal Lagos state. The question then is how does the Court of Appeal
deal with judicial precedent?
It is trite
that the Court of Appeal is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court. However,
in dealing with decisions of a Court of Appeal in another division, the Court
of Appeal is bound to an extent. In civil cases, it is bound by the decision of
another Court of Appeal except in the situations provided for in the case
of Young vs Bristol Aeroplane Co:
- If the
decision is given per incuriam
- If
there are two or more conflicting decisions of different courts of
appeals, it can follow either of them or choose to follow none of them.
- When a
decision of a Court of Appeal is in contrast with a decision of the
Supreme Court.
However, in
criminal matters, a Court of Appeal is not bound to follow the decisions of
other courts of appeals. This is because of the very nature of criminal law in
which each cases should be treated on its merit. Strictly following a previous
decision could lead to irreparable damage. This may be due to the fact that it
is better for the court to set free 10 guilty persons than to convict a single
innocent person.
THE SUPREME COURT
This is the
highest court in the land and its decisions on any matter are final S.235
CFRN 1999. Its decisions are binding on all courts throughout the country.
The Supreme
Court is not bound by any previous decision of any court anywhere. However, it
follows its previous decisions in order to maintain certainty and uniformity in
the administration of justice. The Supreme Court may however choose to depart
from its previous decisions in the following situation:
- If the
previous decision is given per incuriam.
In the case
of Bucknor Maclean vs Inlaks Nig Ltd [1980] the court
departed from its decision in two previous cases: Shell BP vs Jammal
Engineering ltd and Owumi vs Paterson Zochonis and co
Ltd due to the fact that adherence to these precedents could lead
to substantial injustice.
- If
following the previous decision would lead to substantial injustice.
- When a
legislation nullifies the decision made in the previous judgement.
- If it
is faced with two previous conflicting decisions of its own, it can choose
to follow anyone.
In the case
of Odi vs Osafile the court reasoned that the law was
made for man and not man for the law. Also, man isn’t infallible and so are his
thoughts. Therefore if it is pointed out that there has been a substantial
error in a previous decision, the court should have the jurisdiction to correct
that decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave your comment below