Thus, it is not always easy to distinguish ratio decidendi from obiter dictum when evaluating the effects of a particular decision however when judicial precedent is used, the judge follows or takes the reference of a decision made in a similar past cases that has already been judged upon and he is ruling the same way using the other case as a guideline. However, there may be disagreement over what the ratio is and there may be more than one ratio. Though, an obiter dictum may be of persuasive (as opposed to binding) authority in later cases.Įven if any difficulty arises, the judge will give reasons for his decision, however he will not always tell what the ratio decidendi of case is, and it is then up to a later judge to figure out (elicit) the ratio of the case. The ratio decidendi is the binding part of a judicial decision whereas an obiter dictum isn’t. The decision of the judge may vary according to the facts of the case and is not strictly relevant to the matter in the issue in the original case. Whereas obiter dictum is a decision given by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding in later cases. Then he applies the law to those facts and reaches at a decision, for which he gives the reason (ratio decidendi). When a judge makes his judgement in a case, he outlines the facts which he finds have been proved on the evidence. The ratio decidendi of a case is the important part of establishing precedents that binds inferior courts in the hierarchy. This provides balance and certainty in the law.Ī precedent is always based upon the two factors – the ratio decidendi which means a reason for the decision and obiter dictum which means something said by the way and also the decisions made in the previous relevant cases. In practice, this means that lower courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. The judicial precedent’s doctrine is based on the stare decisis principle – to stand upon decisions and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed. Thus, judicial precedent is based on the judges judgement, hierarchy of courts and a good system of law reporting judges. It refers to the way in which the law is made and amended through the decisions of judges. Therefore the legal definition of Judicial precedent can be stated as a courts judgment quoted as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts a case which serves as authority for the legal principle established in its judgement. This is also known as case law or common law which has developed by broadening down from precedent to precedent. Once a judge decides a legal principle, it is required that is used in future legal cases with similar issues or facts. Judicial precedent: Where past decisions of judges are followed in future cases when the facts of the cases are similar.