Did you know that you may not need to go through a lengthy trial to recover a debt where the debtor has no real defence to your claim?
The conventional procedure for obtaining judgement in Court against a party is through litigation and trial. When a dispute arises between parties, a full trial involving calling of witnesses is adopted to unpack the real issue(s) between the parties. This procedure also enables the Court to hand down a fair judgement base on available facts and evidence before it.
However, there are situations where the rigours of a full trial may not be necessary. The law recognises that not every dispute requires a full-blown trial. This is where the concept of Summary Judgement becomes relevant.
WHAT IS SUMMARY JUDGMENT?
Summary judgment is a procedure through which a claimant asks the Court to enter judgment in his favour without a full trial because, based on the facts placed before the Court, the defendant has no defence or reasonable to the claim.
When money is owed to an individual, business or company, the primary concern of a creditor is to recover his money as fast as possible. Conventional litigation may involve pleadings, interlocutory applications, pre-trial proceedings, calling of witnesses, tendering of documents, cross-examination and final addresses before judgment is delivered.
Summary judgement is adopted to abridge the judicial process to determine disputes expeditiously particularly where the defendant does not dispute the monetary claim. The procedure is intended to enable the Court determine a claim without subjecting the parties to the full rigours of a conventional trial where there is, in substance, no real issue requiring determination.
The Supreme Court has explained the purpose of a Summary Judgement procedure in the case of Thor Ltd. v. First City Merchant Bank Ltd. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 696 at 710–711, where the Court stated that the summary judgment procedure is designed to enable a party, particularly in a liquidated money demand case, obtain judgment without a full trial where the opposing party cannot satisfy the Court that he ought to be allowed to defend the action.
The procedure therefore seeks to strike a balance between two competing interests: the claimant’s right to have a legitimate claim determined expeditiously and the defendant’s right to be heard where there is a genuine dispute requiring a trial.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE DEFENDANT HAS A DEFENCE?
This is where the real test lies. Under Order 35 Rule 5 of the FCT Rules 2025, the Rules provides that, where it appears to the Court that the defendant has a good defence and ought to be permitted to defend the claim, the Court may grant leave to defend. Conversely, where the Court is satisfied that the defendant has no good defence, the Court may enter judgment for the claimant.
Interestingly, the Rules also contemplate a situation where the defendant has a defence to only part of the claim. In such a situation, the Court may enter judgment for the undisputed part and grant the defendant leave to defend the remaining part. This is expressly provided by Order 35 Rule 5(3) of the same rules
FOR EXAMPLE:
Suppose Mr. X owes Mr. Y ₦10 million. Mr. Y commences an action claiming ₦10 million and applies for summary judgment. Mr. X does not deny receiving the money but admits that he owes only ₦8 million, perhaps because he has already repaid ₦2 million. In such circumstances, the Court may enter judgment for the undisputed ₦8 million while allowing Mr. X to defend the remaining ₦2 million, provided there is a genuine issue requiring determination.
BUT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT FOR EVERY CASE
Where the defendant raises substantial and genuine issues—for example, whether the contract was actually entered into, whether the money was repaid, whether the goods or services were supplied, whether the claimant breached the agreement first, whether the amount claimed is correct, or other material questions requiring oral or documentary evidence—the Court may conclude that the matter should proceed to trial.
CONCLUSION
Summary judgment is one of the important procedural tools available to a claimant who has a clear and substantially undisputed claim. Its purpose is not to deprive defendants of their right to fair hearing. Rather, it prevents a defendant with no genuine defence from unnecessarily prolonging litigation and ensures that judicial time is devoted to disputes that genuinely require adjudication.
BY GODWIN T. YARKWAN
Associate
A.O Ayeni & Associates