← Back to Insights

Introduction

Obiter dicta, Latin for "things said by the way," refers to judicial remarks in a judgment that are not essential to the decision and thus lack binding authority. Unlike ratio decidendi, the legal reasoning forming the basis of a decision, obiter dicta are persuasive, offering insights that guide future cases, clarify legal principles, and address novel issues. In Nigerian law, obiter dicta from superior courts, particularly the Supreme Court, significantly influence jurisprudence by shaping legal arguments and judicial reasoning. The case of Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) LLJR-SC, decided by the Supreme Court, provides a compelling example of how obiter dicta contribute to legal discourse, particularly in matters of political party disputes. This article examines the historical development, practical application, and implications of obiter dicta in Nigerian jurisprudence, using Dalhatu as a case study.

Historical Development

Origins in Roman Law

The concept of obiter dicta has roots in Roman law, where magistrates' non-binding opinions, grounded in auctoritas (authority), influenced legal interpretations. These commentaries, though not obligatory, shaped judicial reasoning, providing a foundation for the persuasive role of obiter dicta in common law systems.

Development in English Common Law

In English common law, obiter dicta emerged as courts distinguished between binding (ratio decidendi) and non-binding elements of judgments. The case of Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. (1964) is notable, where Lord Devlin's obiter remarks on negligent misstatement influenced subsequent tort law developments. English courts, as seen in R v. Howe (1987), recognize the persuasive value of obiter dicta, particularly from superior courts, in guiding lower courts.

Application in Nigerian Law

In Nigeria, obiter dicta operate within the common law framework inherited from England, as reinforced by Sections 6 and 287 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which establish the judicial hierarchy. While only ratio decidendi from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are binding, obiter dicta carry significant persuasive authority. Cases like Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya (1989) and University Press Ltd. v. I.K. Martins (Nig) Ltd. (2000) demonstrate that obiter dicta from superior courts guide lower courts, especially in resolving ambiguities or addressing emerging legal issues.

How Obiter Dicta Works in Practice

In Nigerian law, obiter dicta function under the following conditions:

  • Persuasive Authority: Obiter dicta are not binding but carry weight, particularly when issued by the Supreme Court, as noted in Osakue v. Federal College of Education, Asaba (2010).
  • Guiding Lower Courts: Lower courts may adopt obiter dicta to address novel issues or gaps in precedent, as seen in Okumagba v. Egbe (1965).
  • Judicial Discretion: Courts may disregard obiter dicta if they conflict with binding precedents or are irrelevant, as highlighted in Odu v. State (2001).
  • Influence on Future Cases: Obiter dicta often shape legal arguments and may be adopted as ratio decidendi in subsequent cases, enhancing jurisprudential development.

These conditions allow obiter dicta to foster legal clarity and adaptability while respecting the doctrine of stare decisis.

Case Study – Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) LLJR-SC

Case Background

In Dalhatu v. Turaki (SC.31/2003), the plaintiff, Bashir Mohammed Dalhatu, challenged the recognition of Ibrahim Saminu Turaki as the All Nigeria People's Party (ANPP) gubernatorial candidate for Jigawa State in the 2003 elections. Dalhatu participated in a primary election in Kano, where he was declared the winner, while Turaki won a separate primary in Dutse, Jigawa State, recognized by the ANPP. Dalhatu sought a declaration that Turaki's recognition was unconstitutional and an injunction to protect his rights. The High Court ruled in Dalhatu's favor, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, citing lack of jurisdiction based on Onuoha v. Okafor (1983). The Supreme Court dismissed Dalhatu's appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal's ruling.

Key Legal Issue

The central issue was whether courts have jurisdiction to intervene in a political party's internal affairs, specifically candidate selection or election. The Supreme Court's obiter dicta in Dalhatu provided significant commentary on the judiciary's role in such disputes, reinforcing the principles from Onuoha v. Okafor.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court, per Justice I. Katsina-Alu, held that the courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain disputes over a political party's candidate selection, as such matters are internal party affairs. The ratio decidendi relied heavily on Onuoha v. Okafor, where the court ruled that courts cannot compel a political party to sponsor a particular candidate, as this involves political questions outside judicial purview. The court dismissed Dalhatu's claim, affirming that the ANPP's recognition of Turaki was a domestic matter governed by the party's constitution.

The court's obiter dicta, drawn from Onuoha v. Okafor and elaborated in the judgment, included significant remarks:

"A positive or an affirmative answer [to assuming jurisdiction] will instantly project or propel the court into the area of jurisdiction to run and manage political parties and politicians. Can the court decide which of the two candidates can best represent the political interest of the [ANPP]? In all honesty, I think the court will in so doing be deciding a political question which it is ill fitted to do." (Obaseki, J.S.C., cited at p. 503).

"The question of the candidate a political party will sponsor is more in the nature of a political question which the courts are not qualified to deliberate upon and answer." (Obaseki, J.S.C., cited at p. 505).

These obiter remarks clarified that judicial intervention in party primaries risks overstepping jurisdictional boundaries, as courts lack the criteria to determine a party's best candidate. While not binding, these statements reinforced the principle of non-interference in political party affairs, providing persuasive guidance for future cases.

Legal Implications of Obiter Dicta in Litigation

The obiter dicta in Dalhatu v. Turaki have several implications for Nigerian litigation:

  • Procedural Guidance: The remarks guide legal practitioners to avoid framing internal party disputes as justiciable matters, emphasizing the need to exhaust party mechanisms before approaching courts.
  • Judicial Restraint: The obiter underscores the judiciary's reluctance to intervene in political questions, encouraging courts to defer to party constitutions and internal processes.
  • Development of Electoral Law: The comments have influenced subsequent cases, such as Amaechi v. INEC (2008), where courts clarified limited exceptions for judicial intervention (e.g., constitutional breaches or unfair hearing), building on Dalhatu's obiter.

Legal practitioners must carefully assess whether disputes fall within judicial jurisdiction, leveraging obiter dicta to anticipate court approaches. Political parties should strengthen internal dispute resolution mechanisms to align with the persuasive guidance of obiter remarks.

Conclusion

Obiter dicta play a pivotal role in Nigerian jurisprudence, offering persuasive insights that shape legal reasoning and guide judicial practice. The Dalhatu v. Turaki case illustrates how obiter remarks can clarify the boundaries of judicial authority, particularly in political party disputes. Legal practitioners should harness obiter dicta to craft informed arguments, while courts can use them to address emerging issues within the bounds of stare decisis. By embracing the persuasive power of obiter dicta, the Nigerian legal system fosters clarity and adaptability in jurisprudence.