Question

The decision of a judge over a case can become a means to bind others in similar disputes in the future. For example, a decision of the Federal Court over a case can bind the lower courts and a decision of a High Court can bind the Sessions Court or the Magistrates Courts.

1. How could the judges in the lower courts overcome the doctrine of binding judicial precedents?

2. If the law in the country can be developed through judicial precedents, why is there a need for statutory law?

Explain both questions in detail. (Use your own words, don't use same chegg answers and don't copy from internet source)

Answer 1

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis requires that cases follow the precedents of other similar cases in similar jurisdictions.

What Makes a Precedent?

A unique case with hardly any past reference material may become a precedent when the judge makes a ruling on it. Also, the new ruling on a similar present case replaces any precedent that has been overruled in a current case. Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system

In effect, all courts are bound to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country. Therefore, decisions that the highest court makes become binding precedent or obligatory stare decisis for the lower courts in the system. When the Supreme Court overturns a precedent made by courts below it in the legal hierarchy, the new ruling will become stare decisis on similar court hearings. If a case ruled in a Kansas court, which has abided by a certain precedent for decades, is taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Kansas ruling gets overturned, then the Court’s overrule replaces the former precedent, and Kansas courts would need to adapt to the new rule as precedent.