LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary Judgment – Defendant’s Obligation to Condescend Upon Particulars
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
To show that he has a good defence to the claim on the merits, the defendant must disclose facts to satisfy the court, usually by affidavit. To achieve this, he is required to condescend upon particulars — and the defence must not be seen as 'frivolous and practically moonshine' to use the expression of Lord Lindley in Codd v. Delap (1905) 92 L.T. 810. To 'condescend upon particulars' implies a true and real disclosure of facts from which the court can readily discern a good defence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Sanusi Brothers (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Cotia Commercio Exportacao e Importacao S.A. (2000) NLC-31995(SC) at p. 12; Paras D–E.
"To show that he has a good defence to the claim on the merits, the defendant must disclose facts to satisfy the court, usually by affidavit. To achieve this, he is required to condescend upon particulars — and the defence must not be seen as 'frivolous and practically moonshine' to use the expression of Lord Lindley in Codd v. Delap (1905) 92 L.T. 810. To 'condescend upon particulars' implies a true and real disclosure of facts from which the court can readily discern a good defence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
“Condescend upon particulars” means providing specific, detailed facts from which the court can discern a genuine defence. Vague or general assertions are insufficient. The defence must not be frivolous or “practically moonshine”—clearly unsustainable. The defendant’s affidavit must contain true, real disclosure of facts, not legal conclusions or speculation. This standard prevents defendants from using summary judgment procedure to delay legitimate claims. The court must be able to assess the defence’s merit without conducting a trial. If the defence is implausible on its face, conditional leave may be refused or judgment entered.