The Federal High Declaration On Federal Marriage Registries: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In Perspective

By O. G. Orji Esq.

Stare Decisis in the context of this work would be referred to as, past decisions of Superior Courts to be relied upon when similar cases or issues are presented before lower Courts. According to M.D.A. Freeman, Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence (Eighth Edition)  1536, to take the same course as has been taken previously, or as has usually been adopted in the past, not only confers the advantage of accumulated experience of the past but also saves the effort of having to think out a problem anew each time it arises and this applies not merely to legal systems but to all rule or norms-creating bodies, whether clubs, Government departments, Schools, business firms or Churches.

It is no longer news that recently, a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, declared Marriages conducted at the Federal Marriage Registries a nullity while upholding that only Local Government Councils are empowered to conduct Statutory marriages. Consequently, the Federal Ministry of Interior, the supervisory Ministry for the Federal marriage Registry, in an official statement revealed that, the same Federal High Court had previously, on two occasions given contrary decisions, empowering the Federal marriage Registries to conduct Statutory Marriages.

The legal question to be answered would be, has the Federal High Court the legal capacity to deliver judgments which would amount to stare decisis, judicial precedent or judge made laws, respecting the propriety or otherwise of Federal Marriage Registries to undertake the conduct of Marriages under the Act which can be relied upon by other courts of competent jurisdiction?

In solving the foregoing legal puzzle, it would helpful to emphasize that, the three Federal High Court decisions on the subject matter in view are: (i) FHC/L/870/2002 between Prince Haastrup vs. Eti-Osa Local Government Council; (ii) FHC/L/CS/1760/2016 between Egor Local Government Council & Ors. vs. Hon. Minister of Interior & Ors. and (iii) FHC/L/CS/816/2018 between Eti-Osa Local Government Council & Ors. vs. Hon. Minister of Interior & Ors. 

The thrust of these cases were who has the legal capacity to conduct statutory marriages between the Federal and Local Government Marriage Registries? It is noteworthy that, the Federal High Courts in Nigeria have equal and co-ordinate jurisdiction and the three decisions in view were delivered by the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos.

On this vexed issue, it is instructive to note the timeless position of M.D.A. Freeman (Supra) 1537, that the courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are not bound by each other’s decisions, and a decision of a lower court can only persuade but not bind its superior. What this means is that, the doctrine of stare decisis or judicial precedence does not abound, when the decision sought to be relied upon was delivered by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.

In the first decision in view, FHC/L/870/2002, the Federal High Court held that the Federal Marriage Registries have the power to conduct statutory marriages and that they can delegate the power to Local Government districts. That, the Local Government only has powers to register the marriages after their formation.

In the second decision in view, FHC/L/CS/1760/2016, the Federal High Court recognized its earlier decision and declined jurisdiction to hear a matter which it had previously heard and determined respecting the same subject matter, noting that, it would amount to an abuse of court process to do so.

In the third and more recent decision in view, FHC/L/CS/816/2018, the Federal High Court held that Local Governments can conduct marriages.

Considering the fact that, the Ministry of Interior is a Federal Agency; the Federal High Court is the court of first instance respecting matters arising therefrom. As a court of first instance, under the doctrine of stare decisis, judgments of a “fellow” Federal High Court cannot be binding on another Federal High Court as judicial precedent rather; only judgments of superior courts of record, such as the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court can have a binding force on a Federal High Court. Little wonder the Federal High Court in the second case in view declined jurisdiction and rightly declared the suit an abuse of court process. Rather than file the third and most recent case in view, the Claimants who were also the defendants in the aforementioned first case in view, wherein the Federal Marriage Registries were held to be empowered to conduct statutory Marriages, would have approached the Appellate Court and any decision given by would properly amount to stare decisis or judicial precedent.