Judgment 101

 

Recently, a popular Nigerian journalist was sued by a British Journalist for defamation due to certain allegations made in a publication by the Nigerian journalist.

While the court proceedings went on, the Nigerian journalist did not appear in court nor defend himself. Eventually, the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom proceeded with the trial and ruled in favour of the British journalist, awarding him the sum of €113888.15 (approximately 201 million Naira) as damages.

This raises the question, “Can the court give judgment against a person who didn’t defend himself?”

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is that the court grants a type of judgment known as a default judgment in such circumstances.

What is a Default Judgment?

A default judgment is judgment given by the court where a defendant fails to appear in court or present a defence to the action brought against him. This kind of judgment exists to prevent any attempt to delay or obstruct the administration of justice.

Imagine that you sued someone for something that they did to you and the person tried to evade legal consequences by not showing up in court. This is the kind of problem that a default judgment would typically solve.

There are two types of default judgment:

1. Default judgment in default of appearance– The defendant fails to enter appearance to the suit. (Order 14 High Court of FCT rules and Order 10 High Court of Lagos rules)
2. Default judgment in default of pleadings- The defendant enters appearance but fails to file a defence in response to the suit. (Order 27 High Court of FCT rules and Order 20 High Court of Lagos rules).

What essentially happens is that the Claimant would make an application to the court for default judgment and if granted, the Court would proceed with the hearing in the Defendant’s absence. If the Claimant is found to have a probable cause of action, then default judgment would be given against the Defendant and in favour of the Claimant.

Setting aside default judgment
What can a defendant who has a good reason for not being able to participate in the original case do if a default judgment is given against him? Does that mean he has no recourse ?

Not at all. The law is firm but fair and so in circumstances like that, the defendant can apply to the court to set aside the judgment on one of the following grounds:

• Fraud: The judgment was obtained fraudulently
• Non-service: The Defendant was not served with the Claimant’s legal documents and so was not aware of the existence of the case.
• Lack of jurisdiction: The Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case in the first place.

See the Supreme Court decision in Mark v Eke.

Other types of judgment
It would interest you to know that default judgment is not the only type of ‘unusual’ judgment. There are other types of judgment that a court can give. They are:

• Summary judgment
• Consent judgment

Summary Judgment
As the name implies, summary judgment is a type of judgment that is given without conducting a full trial which includes examining witnesses, tendering exhibits, etc.

It is given when a Claimant reasonably believes that the Defendant has no credible defence to the action brought against him.

The primary aim of summary judgment is to achieve a speedy trial and a quick dispensation of justice. The court would do away with the normal, lengthy trial procedures and hear the case summarily.

There are some courts that hear all their cases summarily. They are referred to as courts of summary trial. These are typically lower courts namely; Magistrate court, District court and Area court.

However, superior courts (such as the State High Court, Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, etc) are courts of record and they are required to hear cases fully, except when an application for summary judgment is brought.

Hence, a Claimant who believes that he has a straightforward case which the Defendant has no probable defence for, may apply to the court for summary judgment in his favour.

If the Defendant believes that he has a good defence and he wants a full trial to be conducted, he would then file a counter-affidavit to that effect. The court would hear both arguments and decide whether to grant the application for summary judgment or hear the matter fully.

Consent judgment
Consent judgment is an agreement between the parties to a suit which is declared by the court as its judgment.

It applies where the parties to an existing lawsuit resolve a disagreement between themselves and reach a consensus, then the agreement is taken back to the court, for the judge to sanction it (that means to give it the force of law) and declare it as the judgment of the court on the matter.

Consent judgment has the same legal effect as any other type of judgment. What this means is that it is binding and failure to comply with it would amount to contempt of court which has severe consequences, ranging from fines to imprisonment.

However, unlike other types of judgment, consent judgment cannot be appealed except with the permission of the court. See section 241(2)(c) of the 1999 Nigerian constitution.

Usually, permission would not be granted except the party who wishes to appeal can prove:

Mistake: He entered into the agreement under a mistaken belief or the judgment was granted under a mistaken belief.
Fraud: The agreement was made fraudulently
Duress: He was forced to enter the agreement
Lack of jurisdiction: The court that gave the judgment lacked the jurisdiction to do so.

Although the court exercises discretion in granting permission to appeal, the person applying would still be required to prove any of these exceptional circumstances as reasons for the appeal.

That sums up the different types of judgment in a civil case in Nigeria.

 

 

Source: LawPádì