The Administrator of the National Judicial Institute (NJI) Justice Babatunde Adejumo has argued that there was nothing unusual for courts of coordinate jurisdiction to render conflicting decisions on cases with similar facts.
Justice Adejumo, the immediate past President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) said judges give judgements based on their understanding of the law and the facts presented.
He said the controversies generated by such developments were unnecessary because there are always remedies available under the law.
Justice Adejumo said, even in what appears as the worst scenario, where two courts in the same jurisdiction go e conflicting decisions, that did not mean any wrong has been committed, except it is established that ulterior motive was involved.
He also stressed the need for the Judiciary to maintain it’s integrity and ensure the protection of the rule of law, arguing that countries without respect for the law are always isolated by others, who values the concept of rule of law.
The NJI Administrator spoke in Abuja on Thursday at a media briefing to herald the 2025 All Nigeria Judges Conference, scheduled to begin on November 17 at the NJI in Abuja
He said over 1000 judges are expected at the conference being organised by the NJI, and which will afford the judicial offers to reflect on the past year, plan for a better outing next year and address issues bothering the judicial system and the country.
Justice Adejumo, who was reacting to the controversy over the conflicting decisions by two Federal High Courts in Abuja and a High Court in Abuja on the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), said no court of coordinate jurisdiction is bound by the decision of another.
He said: “You see, in the Judiciary, respective judges give judgments according to their understanding of the law and the way they see things.
“And, you don’t just give judgment, judgment must be based on the facts as presented to the cour and, as provable with credible evidence.
“That is why, even in the United States of America which is believed as the oldest democracy, and where they have a judicial system that is superb, they have state courts.
“A court in New York or Washington may deliver a judgment and when another court in Maryland, just some few kilometres away; or New Jersey, very close to New York, may give a different opinion about the same set of facts.
“It depends on the interpretation of the law based on the facts and evidence,” he said.
Justice Adejumo said as it relates to the complaint that there are instances of conflicting judgments by courts of coordinate jurisdiction in Nigeria, the development is not a new thing.
He added: “And, that is why we have ladders of courts. If two, three courts give conflicting decisions on the same subject matter, the aggrieved party may proceed to the Court of Appeal, which will have a better say.
“If any of the parties is not yet satisfied, it goes to the apex court, which is the final court. And, whatever that court says on that matter settles that issue,” he said.
The NJI Administrator added that it should always be noted that all the courts are established by different statutes and laws, noting that while the Federal High Court and the HIgh Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) are established by the laws enacted by the National Assembly, the HIgh Courts of the various states are established by the laws passed by the states’s Assemblies.
He argued that no court is bound to follow the judgment of a coordinate jurisdiction.
Justice Adejumo however, noted that “it would amount to judicial rascality if, for instance the Court of Appeal has given on a dispute and a High Court, instead of following the decision of the higher court, now gives a conflicting decision, that will not be acceptable.
“And, if the Supreme Court has spoken, no division of the Court of Appeal would speak differently, except if they are trying to use the Canon of Interpretation.
“For instance, if some words are used in the judgment, (of the apex court) that are not clear to the lower court, it might interpret it and try to see the way it gets settles the issue.
“So, having conflicting decisions in Nigerian courts of coordinate jurisdiction, is not a new thing. It is allowed.
“But, it would have been better if there laws are amended through their rules of court, to provide that, for you to come to court, seeking for redress, you must swear to an affidavit that, to the best of your knowledge, this issue (the subject matter of your case) has not been presented before any court of law.
“And, if it is later discovered that you lied, you are held to be perjuring on oath and a decision to sentencing is provided. So, until that is done, the situation will remain,” he said.
He added: “And so, we have the National Judicial Council (NJC). If you believe that the reason behind the conflicting decisions has an ulterior motive, you are free to petition. What will not sound very well is, if within the same jurisdiction, for instance in the FCT.
“If court A gives a decision on the same set of facts and court B now gives a different decision on the same facts, that may not be fine enough, but yet the judge (who gave the conflicting decision) has not committed any wrong, because it is the appellate that will tell us which of the two decisions to follow.
“That is why when court A says something on a set of facts and court B says something else in the same set of facts, people will say we are waiting for the decision of the Court of Appeal.
“I think, with my humble view, and with my experience on the Bench for a out 30 years; I was a Chief Magistrate, a Deputy Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, I was a High Court judge in Ondo State, and I was the President of the National Industrial Court for 16 and hals years, so, I think I have an idea of what adjudication means,” Justice Adejumo said.
On the how the Judiciary should conduct itself in a democracy, he said: “Confidence in the Judiciary is the cornerstone of democracy.
“It is the assurance that Justice will be dispensed fairly, impartially, and without fear or favour.
“A Judiciary that commands confidence is one that strengthens the rule of law, protects fundamental rights and upholds the values of equity and fairness.
“In discharging its responsibilities, the Judiciary must always be above board, because there is no country that will like to have anything to do with a country where there is no rule of law.
“The absence of rule of law means taking is back to the golden age and it means that we will be isolated.
“Any country that that fails to observe the rule of law, other civilised countries will not have anything to do with that country.
“No country will like to have direct trade with a country where the rule of law is not guaranteed.
“The dictates of the rule of law requires that all sides must be heard and a decision taken accordingly, so that both the winner and the loser will say, I know I lost, but justice has been done,” he said.
 Justice Babatunde Adejumo has argued that there was nothing unusual for courts of){kind=link}