4.

The stare decisis doctrine of judicial precedent is the English legal system's cornerstone. It
alludes to the idea that earlier rulings (precedents) from higher courts have precedential
authority over lower courts and, to some extent, even the same court. This doctrine is
essential to maintaining the legal system's predictability and clarity. One of the main tenets
of the common law legal system, applied in many nations, including the US, the UK,
Australia, and Canada, is the idea of judicial precedent, or stare decisis. This principle
necessitates that lower courts follow the decisions and rulings of higher courts in similar
cases to promote consistency, predictability, and fairness in the legal system. According to
Vidushan Manamperi, LLB of University of London and Bachelor’s degree in law at Sri Lanka
Law School, he state that, “It is generally expected that there is a certain uniformity or
consistency in the decisions courts make. The practice of precedent is not particularly
unusual and is to be found to a greater or lesser degree in most developed legal systems.
Indeed, in civil law jurisdictions there is a principle of non-binding precedent, sometimes
referred to as the doctrine of judicial consistency.”1 He also states that “In the English
common law system, the doctrine of binding precedent in which the courts are bound to
follow earlier decisions. Although a judge in a second court might not approve of the earlier
precedent. Perhaps, this is referred to as the rule of stare decisis. The concept of stare
decisis means to stand by what has been decided, forms the basis of the doctrine of judicial
precedent. The notion is that like cases should be treated alike for the sake of certainty and
consistency which it is argued, leads to fairness.”2

Judicial precedent dictates that the High Court judge must follow the Court of Appeal's
ruling. A court's decision made by a judge is binding on courts at its level or below it in the
Malaysian Judicial System's hierarchy if the illegal point, circumstances, and case type are
the same as those in the case where the decision was made. This system is known as judicial
precedent. An example of an original precedent is Donoghue v Stevenson3.

This case has straightforward facts. The appellant drank a bottle of respondent-made ginger
beer on August 26, 1928, which she received from a friend who had purchased it from a
retailer. The decomposing remains of a snail were present in the bottle, but they were not
discovered until most of the contents had been eaten. She consequently claimed that she
had severe gastroenteritis and shock, which at this point must be taken as true. As a result,
she started legal action against the manufacturer that is the subject of this appeal. The
foundation of her case is that the respondent, as the manufacturer of an article intended for
consumption and contained in a receptacle that prevented inspection, owed a duty to her as
a consumer of the article to take care that there was no noxious element in the goods, that
he neglected such duty, and that he is, consequently, liable for any damage caused by such
neglect. After certain amendments which are now immaterial, the case came before the

1
2
3
Lord Ordinary, who rejected the respondent's plea in law and allowed it. This case could be
seen as an original case as no case has similar facts in this case.