Judgements: Civil Procedure

JUDGEMENTS: CIVIL PROCEDURE 

Joshua Ufedo-Baba

University Of Jos

Introduction.

When parties to an action appear before a court, the aim of such appearance is either to determine rights between the parties, for an answer to a question of law, or for the enforcement of an obligation. Accordingly, judgements are given taking all these into reckoning, and since courts are not recreational centres for testing the grounds of litigation, judgements are given against suits that are highly hypothetical and without utilitarian value to a person instituting the said lis. 

Body

A judgment according to the Black's Law Dictionary is an official and authentic decision of a court of justice upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit therein litigated and submitted to its determination. A judgment entails the resolution of the rights of the parties in an action. A court's judgment is its decision, S. 318 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) a  'decision' of a court is interpreted to mean:

... any determination of the court and includes judgment; decree, order conviction, sentence or recommendation;

Since a court's judgement is its decision, or rather, a court's decision is found in its judgment, how a court can settle grievances— types of judgments— to arrive at a determination is relevant. The types of judgment(s) are:

1.) Consent Judgment 

2.) Final Judgment 

3.) Default Judgment

4.) Interlocutory Judgment 

5.) Summary Judgment

6.) Declaratory Judgment 

1.) Consent Judgement

A consent judgement involves both parties settling a dispute without the formal process of adjudication by the court. The role of the court is to enter judgement on the request of both parties and by the terms of the agreement. A consent judgement must hold a consensus and should be self-imposed by both parties with the open assertion that the court will enforce this agreement.

In Alpha Properties Int'l Limited v. Nigeria, Deposit Insurance Corporation the court in defining its role observed:

Parties and only parties to a consent judgement are bound by the terms set out therein. A court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to change the terms of a consent judgement entered to make a person who was not a party thereto bound by the judgement.

It is also noteworthy that a consent judgement is appealable only by leave of a court as provided by section 241(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution and will only apply to all the claims, not a part of it.

2.) Final Judgement

A final judgement settles an action thus bringing a proceeding to an end. A final judgement seeks to apportion rights, layout liabilities, and proffer settlement all emanating from the said action. In Onyeabuchi v. INEC it was held that a final judgement or decision cannot be varied, reopened, or set aside by the court that delivered it or any other court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. A final judgement is thus functus officio. Still, final judgements are appealable to higher courts.

There are often conflicts on what makes a judgement final or interlocutory, the court in Ogboru v. Ibori [2005] 13 NWLR pt. 319 in determining what a final judgement meant held:

No order, judgement, or other proceeding can be final which does not at once affect the status of the parties for whichever side the decision may be...

Also, in the instant case, the court outlined the distinction between a final judgement and an interlocutory judgement:

A final judgement puts an end to an action by declaring that the plaintiff is or is not entitled to the remedy he sued for so that nothing remains to be done but to execute the judgement... An interlocutory judgement or non-final judgement, on the other hand, does not terminate the action because it is not complete and definite. It is an immediate judgement.

Final judgments include a judgment on the jurisdiction, a judgement on constitutional reference, a non-suit order, an adjudication on the action of its merit, consent judgements, et al.

3.) Default Judgement.

When a judgement is given against a party for failing to fulfill his due obligation in a proceeding or against a party for default of process in a proceeding, such judgements are by nature, default judgements. A default judgement as its name implies is a decision given in default of a procedural rule, a failure you appear at a trial, or any other malady the court may presume as a default to the process.

Accordingly, since this judgement is not given on the merit of the case– and since it is a precursor that for a valid judgement to ensue, it must possess all the elements of a fair trial including a fair hearing— the court has the power to set aside the judgement albeit discretionary.

The court laid down the rules to follow for setting aside a default judgement in Ugwu v. Agba:

a.) The reason for the default.

b.) Whether there has been undue delay in making the application work as to prejudice the respondent.

c.) Whether the respondent would be prejudiced or embarrassed upon an order for rehearing being made such that it would be inequitable to permit the case to be re-opened.

d.) Whether the applicant's case is manifestly unsupportable.

e.) Whether the applicant's conduct throughout the proceedings has been such as to make the application worthy of sympathetic consideration.

Where the rules of court for obtaining the judgement are followed to their entirety, it becomes a regular default judgement, where it is not followed, such judgement becomes irregular and susceptible to be set aside.

4.) Interlocutory Judgements

These are judgements that do not finalize the proceeding, unlike final judgements, the rights and liabilities of parties are not disposed of. Thus, if the decision does not settle the rights of parties to the action in finality, such judgenents/decisions are interlocutory. In Bwai v. United Bank of Africa Plcthe court in distinguishing interlocutory judgements said:

When a decision/order/ruling/judgement is such that the court undoubtedly shows that it has not yet completed the decision/order/ruling/judgement, and is likely to revisit same, then it is not a final decision, it is interlocutory.

5.) Summary Judgement

With arguments as to whether a summary judgement can be grouped under the types of judgements, a summary judgement by general agreement is a judgement on the merits where the claim of the plaintiffs/claimants is entered based on the absence or lack of defence to the claim. It is a speedy process where the court gives judgement in favour of the claimant without a full trial. Summary judgements are usually prevalent in cases that have to do with contractual obligations, where the role of summary judgement is to dispose of certain elements of a full trial, doing away with the need to call witnesses and the decision being reached based on the statement of claim, writ of summon and seldomly, statement of defence. In the statement of defence, specific facts and nature should be enumerated to determine if a good defence exists.

While a summary judgement rarely has a defence, there are instances the defendant may be granted leave to defend an action under the judgement procedure. In Carling International (Nig.) Ltd v. Keystone Bank Ltd. the court clarified such instances:

... the duty of the court in the procedure, where a defendant files a counter affidavit to the motion for summary judgement is to look carefully at the affidavit evidence to see what the particulars and details of the defence and whether or not they specifically and effectively deal with the particulars... the law does not require that the defence should be a complete defence to the claim or that it is likely to succeed at the trial and so a court would not embark in the assessment of whether the defence would succeed or not if there was a trial.

6.) Declaratory Judgement

These are orders of the court that declare the rights of the parties where they are in doubt— especially of the plaintiff– as to the rights he holds. Such judgments have no relief to be awarded. Declaratory judgements are discretionary with the court taking into cognizance the facts before them, confining themselves only to the facts. Hence, a declaratory judgement merely declares the rights of the parties. The exception comes in when the right being expounded upon is violated, the court is then allowed to go beyond declaring these rights, to protecting it. 

Karibi-Whyte JSC commenting on the nature of declaratory judgements in Okoya v. Santilli remarked:

... a declaratory judgement which is an embodiment of the recognition of particular right may be the basis for subsequent proceedings to enforce such rights, where such right is threatened or violated... Hence, a declaratory order or judgement remains a dormant right until subsequent proceedings have been taken to protect the threat to or violation of the rights so declared in the judgement or order.