This comparative analysis examines the operation of judicial precedent in Malaysia and Nigeria, two countries with distinct legal systems rooted in common law traditions. Judicial precedent, a fundamental aspect of common law jurisprudence, plays a crucial role in shaping the development of law and ensuring consistency and predictability in judicial decision-making. However, the application of precedent may vary significantly between jurisdictions due to differences in legal principles, judicial structures, and cultural contexts. Through a comprehensive review of case law, statutory provisions, and scholarly literature, this study explores the similarities and differences in the operation of judicial precedent in Malaysia and Nigeria. Key areas of analysis include the hierarchy of courts, principles of stare decisis, methods of distinguishing and overruling precedent, and the role of judicial discretion. By identifying commonalities and divergences in the application of judicial precedent, this research aims to enhance understanding of the complexities of common law systems and facilitate cross-jurisdictional comparative legal studies.

This study investigates the impact of juror and defendant race on social identity dynamics within the Canadian courtroom. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, including surveys, interviews, and courtroom observations, we explore how racial diversity among jurors and defendants influences perceptions of fairness, bias, and social identity in legal proceedings. Preliminary findings suggest that the racial composition of juries and defendants can significantly influence trial outcomes and perceptions of justice. Factors such as racial stereotyping, implicit bias, and group dynamics play a crucial role in shaping juror decision-making and courtroom interactions. This research sheds light on the complexities of social identity dynamics in the Canadian legal system and offers insights into strategies for promoting diversity and fairness in the courtroom.

In this legal study, we discussed the nature of the state order in terms of its legal definition, as the state order is a temporary administrative procedure issued by the competent judge in some instances according to the law on the petition submitted by one of the parties to the case, including facts and evidence and supported by documents in an urgent matter. Likewise, the state order does not enjoy the authority of the ruling order. Still, it enjoys the power of urgent legal enforcement. It suspends the implementation of all urgent procedures and decisions resulting from the issue issued against the state order until the issue of the case is resolved.

And that the Federal Supreme Court, as far as the matter relates to the constitutional dispute, has taken the issue of issuing the state order regarding these disputes, even though its law and internal system are devoid of a text on it, basing it on Civil Procedure Law No. 83 of 1969 as amended in force, and as far as the matter relates to the nature of the constitutional dispute. It also fortified the state decision issued by it from appeal, although the Iraqi Civil Proceedings Law permitted appeal against this decision by way of grievance. Therefore, we will discuss this issue from both legal and practical perspectives, as well as the role of the Federal Supreme Court in resolving constitutional disputes and issuing such decisions when considering constitutional disputes.