LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary Judgment – Conflicting Affidavit Evidence – Conflict on Fundamental Issues Must Be Resolved by Oral Evidence Not Glossed Over
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Conflicts in affidavit evidence on fundamental issues to the matter in controversy must be attended to and not just glossed over. A court of law be it trial or appellate is not imbued with divine or magical powers in the sense that it can divinely or magically resolve conflicts in factual matters which may only be done, in certain circumstances, by dispassionate and painstaking evaluation of the facts or evidence placed before the court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Achike, JSC, in F.S.B. International Bank Ltd. v. Imano Nigeria Ltd. & Anor (2000) NLC-251995(SC) at p. 11; Paras A–C.
"Conflicts in affidavit evidence on fundamental issues to the matter in controversy must be attended to and not just glossed over. A court of law be it trial or appellate is not imbued with divine or magical powers in the sense that it can divinely or magically resolve conflicts in factual matters which may only be done, in certain circumstances, by dispassionate and painstaking evaluation of the facts or evidence placed before the court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where affidavit evidence conflicts on fundamental issues, summary judgment is inappropriate. Courts cannot resolve such conflicts on paper without oral evidence and cross-examination. Affidavits alone do not permit credibility determinations where material facts are disputed. The proper course is to refuse summary judgment and order a full trial. Glossing over conflicts usurps the trial court’s function. This principle ensures that parties receive fair adjudication based on tested evidence, not judicial speculation on disputed facts.