The doctrine of stare decisis as enshrined in articles 129 clause (3) and 136 clause (5) of the 1992 Constitution requires that the principles of law settled in by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court be followed. In following and applying the same principles however, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal may reach the opposite conclusion of the case whose principles were followed and applied on the basis of the varying facts that are considered in each case as the court is not constitutionally enjoined to walk into the full jacket of judicial precedent irrespective of the peculiar facts giving rise to a dispute. It cannot therefore be overemphasized that judicial decisions are made to resolve particular disputes. Thus each decision derives its peculiar quality of justice, soundness and profoundness from the surrounding factual circumstances peculiar to the case it is presumed to adjudicate within the context of the relevant applicable law.
In my considered view, the rules and accepted principles of law established by this court and given constitutional effect cannot be considered in the abstract and slavishly applied without proper attention to and adequate consideration placed on the peculiar facts of each case. The facts of each case are material and fundamental and must assume a crucial role in the process of adjudication. Consequently, I dare say that, the contention that the same material particulars were sufficient to meet the constitutional and statutory requirements in every case in which there is a charge under Section 179A (3)(a) will in my opinion result in injustice to the detriment of a person charged for an offence whose innocence is constitutionally presumed.
All that the learned Judge need have said, on the argument that he was bound by the decisions in them and that the respondent was estopped by those decisions, was that reasons given by a Judge for reaching conclusions on questions of fact do not become part of the law citable as a precedent, for such decisions are nothing more than applications of good sense to the facts, and not rulings on a point of law.
