LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Statement of Defence Filed Out of Time – Court May Consider Irregularly Filed Defence in Summary Judgment Proceedings Where Justice Demands
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It must be borne in mind that the essence of proceedings under Order 10 is to summarily and expeditiously give judgment to a plaintiff where it is crystal clear that the defendant is unable to muster a defence to the claim. It would therefore smack of injustice if the defendant is unwittingly shut out to deliver his defence by reason of under adherence to technical rules of procedure. It is therefore my view that a statement of defence, be it irregularly filed or any document whatsoever in addition to the affidavit to show cause would be worthy of the court's attention before signing of judgment under Order 10.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Achike, JSC, in F.S.B. International Bank Ltd. v. Imano Nigeria Ltd. & Anor (2000) NLC-251995(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras D–A.
"It must be borne in mind that the essence of proceedings under Order 10 is to summarily and expeditiously give judgment to a plaintiff where it is crystal clear that the defendant is unable to muster a defence to the claim. It would therefore smack of injustice if the defendant is unwittingly shut out to deliver his defence by reason of under adherence to technical rules of procedure. It is therefore my view that a statement of defence, be it irregularly filed or any document whatsoever in addition to the affidavit to show cause would be worthy of the court's attention before signing of judgment under Order 10."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
In summary judgment proceedings, courts should consider any statement of defence—even if irregularly filed—before entering judgment. The overriding objective is to ensure justice, not to enforce procedural technicalities that would unfairly shut out a defendant with a genuine defence. Summary judgment is proper only where no defence exists. If a defence, even filed late, raises triable issues, the court should consider it. Substance over form prevails. Technical irregularities should not defeat justice where the defendant demonstrates arguable grounds for defending the claim.