There is no authoritative definition of law and most certainly, there will never be. Any attempt at giving a universal acceptable definition of law will be akin to forcing a camel through the eye of the needle or forcing a fish to climb a tree. Consequently, theories of law are founded to establish an understanding of the nature of law. These theories allow us to attempt the question as to what is law and what the law ought to be.

Now, there are schools of jurisprudence which influences the answer. These theories of jurisprudence include, but not limited to, the positivist theory, realist theory, natural law theory, historical theory etc. The positivist believes law to be nothing more pretentious than what a recognized sovereign authority has enacted. For instance, Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vested the National Assembly with the powers to make laws for the Federation. It follows, therefore, that where the constitutional procedure of law making is strictly adhered to, any law emanating therefrom is valid, nothing more, nothing less. The question as to whether it is just or unjust is inconsequential. On the other hand, the realist theory is against this view. For them, what the court says in resolving disputes is the law. In other words, the decisions of courts stand as the law.

Therefore, the aim and objective of this paper is simple. It is to demonstrate that the decision of the court stands as the law – and not the provisions of statutes. By so doing, this paper will also show landmark cases wherein the court took the view of the realist. As a result, this topic will be doctrinal in nature, in other words, a desk-based or library-based research. It will rely on available literature and numerous cases on the topic. The topic will also rely on secondary sources, considering that most of the materials in this area of law are secondary sources.

Continue reading below:
https://legalnaija.com/5809-2/adedunmade/