THE POSITION OF CONCURRING JUDGMENT IN MATTERS DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE COURTS IN NIGERIA AND ITS IMPACT ON JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: REVIEWING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MAGAJI v NIGERIAN ARMY

In the legal system, court decisions are established as "precedent," which lower court judges must adhere to when presented with similar cases. The majority opinion holds the weight of the court's judgment, while a concurring opinion aligns with the majority decision but presents alternative reasoning. Although, concurring opinions are not considered precedents and cannot be cited as such, this paper delves into the subject of concurring judgments in Nigerian appellate court decisions, specifically exploring their impact on legal precedents following the Supreme Court ruling in Magaji v Nigerian Army. The argument put forth is that relying on concurring opinions to establish new legal principles is not a reliable practice, and the growing trend of citing it in Nigerian courts can lead to confusion and compromise the principle of stare decisis. Using the doctrinal method of research, the paper underscores the significance of adhering to binding precedents and refraining from using concurring opinions as legal principles.