The Significance of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in the Development of Law

By (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State
The Date

Introduction
One cannot cast aspersions on the fact that the doctrine of stare decisis has a profound
significance in the growth and development of the law. It is an English and common law doctrine
expressed in a Latin phrase which means’ let the decision stand’. The doctrine has also been
referred to as judicial precedent. The idea inherent in the doctrine of stare decisis is that the
decision that has been made by a higher court is binding on lower court with a particular
jurisdiction (Lee, 1999). However, the decision that is made by another court from other
jurisdictions acts as a persuasive authority. The degree of persuasiveness of a decision made by
another court from another jurisdiction is conditional on the level of the court where the
precedent was decided and how the level of maturity of the legal system. In other cases, a
precedent from another court outside a certain jurisdiction will be more persuasive based on the
assumption that the decision was made recently although this is not a normative practice. It is
instructive to note that there are peculiar instances where decision from another court will be
persuasive due to the collective reputation and confidence that the judge who decided the case
inspires in the legal profession. Precisely, the primary aim of this essay is explain the how the
doctrine of stare decisis has contributed to the development of the law.
The doctrine of stare decisis implies that the decision that has been made by a higher court will
be binding on a lower court notwithstanding the fact that there may be a possibility that the
decision was erroneous (Kozel, 2010). Further, the doctrine implies that the decision made by
another court is binding on another court which is an equal court with the court that has made the
previous decisions and is of the same jurisdiction (Murgan et al, 2015). According to the doctrine
a court must make a decision is the same manner that it was made in another court if the facts of
the case are similar (Glanville and Smith, 2006) It bears noting that the all the facts of the new
case must not be similar to the decided case. The significance of the idea that a court will be
bound by a previous decision is that when the judge makes the judgment he typically sets out the
material facts of the case, the law that is applicable to the case and the decision based on the facts
and the law. The current judge is expected to apply the law that was applicable in the previous
case and the reasoning that was applied by the judge if it is found that the material facts of the
current case are similar to the previous case.

The underlying principle embedded in the doctrine of stare decisis is ratio decidendi. This
principle implies that a court will be bound by the primary reasoning behind the decision of the
previous judge. It should be borne in mind that the doctrine of stare decisis does not imply that
the whole decision of the judge is binding on another court. The only relevant part of the
judgment that is binding is the main reason that informed the judge’s decisions and the law that
backed that reasoning. It can be argued that lower court will be bound to apply the legal
reasoning that was applied by the judge in the previous case. Conversely, another principle
inherent in the doctrine of stare decisis is Obiter dictum. These are comments that are made by a
judge ‘as a by the way’ about a case that he making a decision on. These comments may be
relevant in arriving at the final decision but they are usually not the basis of the final decision
that is made the judge. Although the ration decedendi of a case is binding, an obiter dictum is not
binding and only acts to persuade the court. Ideally an orbiter dictum carries less weight than a
ratio decidendi with respect to their binding nature.
The neighbor principle and the rule guiding the concept of duty of care in negligence that was
brought to force by the Lord Artkin in the land mark case of Donoghue v Stevenson( 1932) and
applied by the court in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) remains to be rigorous example
of the application of stare decisis. However, it is imperative to note that the neighbor principle is
an orbiter dictum and is not binding it has been used to persuade the reasoning of the judge.
Middletown J. A. in Sweney v. The Department of Highway (1933) averred that the essence of
the doctrine of stare decisis is that it promotes certainty of the law. This means that the law,
through the doctrine of stare decisis is developing uniformly. On the other hand it can also be
argued that the doctrine of stare decisis promotes justice and fairness. This is exemplified in a
circumstance where there are two similar people who both manifest similar facts. It would be
utterly unreasonable and contrary to justice and fairness to treat one person better than the other.
The doctrine of stare decisis dictates that the reasoning that was applied in the previous case
should be applied in the present case for justice and fairness to reign.
In Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944) the court noted that although decisions that have
been made by higher courts are binding on lower courts, the decision may be over turned by the
highest court of the land or the court of last resort such as the Supreme Court (Moschzisker,
1924).