LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Default Judgment — Interlocutory vs. Final Judgment in Unliquidated Claims
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
For unliquidated pecuniary damages, the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory judgment (final as to liability but interlocutory as to amount), followed by an application for ascertainment of the precise amount of damages.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Maja v. Samouris (2002) NLC-721997(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras A–E.
"The appellant's claim being one for unliquidated pecuniary damages and coming within the purview of the provisions of Order 24 rule 4, the appellant was entitled to apply for an interlocutory and not final judgment in default of defence. The term 'interlocutory judgment' means that such a judgment is interlocutory only as to the amount, but is final as to the right of the plaintiff to recover damages. Thereafter the appellant would be entitled to make an application to the court for the ascertainment of the precise amount of damages to which he might be entitled."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
For unliquidated damages, the proper default judgment is interlocutory. It establishes liability but leaves quantum open. The plaintiff must then apply for assessment of damages. The court will hear evidence on the amount. The principle ensures that unliquidated damages are properly proved. The defendant may contest the quantum at the assessment stage. The distinction between interlocutory and final judgment is crucial. Final judgment on unliquidated damages without assessment is improper. The rule applies to all unliquidated claims. The plaintiff cannot obtain a final judgment without proving damages. The court must follow the correct procedure.
