The Legal Effect of An “Obiter Dictum” Made by A Court: An Appraisal of The Supreme Court Judgement in AGF v. A.G. A.G. Abia State & 35 ORS SC/CV/343/2024

By Goodhope Okechukwu Orji (Esq.)

Indeed, Nigeria is an organized society where individuals and/or institutions approach the courts for the resolution of specific issues that they have presented before the courts. In the case of AGF v. A.G. ABIA STATE & 35 ORS SC/CV/343/2024, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court with 18 specific issues, and the Court resolved those issues by making 11 declarations and 3 orders on the basis of the issues presented by the plaintiff in that case.

In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that courts are not Father Christmas and grant parties what they do not ask for. Also, you cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. Where a plaintiff has not specifically presented an issue before a court, he cannot expect to derive any benefit from it. Even if the Court, while addressing the real issues before it, makes reference to an issue outside the precinct of the case presented by the Plaintiff, it would amount to an “Obiter Dictum.”. The Supreme Court in the landmark case ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD. v. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 defined an “Obiter Dictum” as a statement made by a judge in the course of delivering a judgment that does not relate to the live issues before the Court and is not binding authority.

With specific reference to the case of AGF v. A.G. ABIA STATE & 35 ORS SC/CV/343/2024, because the Plaintiff did not seek any prayer or raise any issue relating to tenure elongation of elected Chairmen in the Defendant’s respective states, the Supreme Court, in making its 11 Declarations and 3 orders, did not make any Declaration or Order relating to tenure elongation. (See the lead Judgment per E. A. AGIM JSC, pp. 51–55.)

However, in delivering his concurring judgment, M. A. A. ADUMEIN JSC, on pages 16–17, made a statement or remark touching on the tenure elongation of elected Chairmen of Local Governments. Respectfully, the said statement on tenure elongation, to the extent that the issue of tenure elongation was not before the Supreme Court in the case in view, is at best an “Obiter Dictum,” which has no binding authority.

Here are some Supreme Court of Nigeria cases that have held that obiter dictum is not law:

1. OKAFOR v. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 521: The Supreme Court held that obiter dictum is not binding and does not constitute a precedent.
2. EBBA v. OGODO (1984) 1 SCNLR 372: The Supreme Court stated that obiter dictum is not law and cannot be relied upon as a precedent.
3. NZOM v. EFIKA (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 347: The Supreme Court held that the obiter dictum is not binding and does not have the force of law.
4. UDEDIBIA v. UDEDIBIA (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1161) 100: The Supreme Court stated that obiter dictum is not a binding precedent and cannot be relied upon as law.
5. OGBORU v. UDUAGHAN (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 1: The Supreme Court held that obiter dictum is not law and cannot be used to decide a case.

These cases illustrate the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s position that an Obiter Dictum from any court in Nigeria is not binding and does not constitute law.

Goodhope Okechukwu Orji (Ph.D. in view), hope.orji@nigerianbar.ng

Source: thenigerialawyer