The doctrine of judicial precedent which states that the court must stand by what has beendecided in a case when deciding a new case by a judge in court, is commonly known and usedamong the countries that practice common law system. However, it is presently observed thatthe doctrine of judicial precedent which is not to be practiced in Shariah Court is known to beextending its influence to Sharia Court. This paper makes a comparative study of the extent ofinfluence of judicial precedent in Shariah courts in Nigeria and Malaysia, with a view toensuring total exclusion of the practice of precedent from sharia courts and ensuringindependence of Sharia courts. Based on doctrinal research approach, this paper examines theconcept of judicial precedent and operation of doctrine of judicial precedent among differentcategories of Sharia courts in Nigeria and Malaysia. It is generally observed that the practiceof judicial precedent is not applicable to all Shariah Courts in Nigeria and Malaysia. It ishowever observed that despite exclusion of judicial precedent from shariah courts in the twocountries, there are few instances where the practice of judicial precedent is gaining someinfluence on the jurisdiction of Shariah courts particularly in Nigeria. This gives the impressionthat the Shar’iah courts are placed under the power of common law courts. It is further observedthat this position constitutes a problem to independence of Shariah Courts and thereforeconclude that the practice of judicial precedent should totally be excluded from Shariah Courtsin order to ensure thatmore independence is granted to Shariah Courts. This study provides anopportunity to compare note on the administration of judicial precedent in the Shariah courtsin Nigeria and Malaysia.