LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary Judgment — Construction of documents — Whether permissible
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a document is capable of more than one meaning, summary judgment is inappropriate; if any of the possible meanings gives the defendant a defence in law, the defendant is entitled to defend.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Agbaje, JSC, in Macaulay v. NAL Merchant Bank Ltd (1990) NLC-1861986(SC) at pp. 30–31; Paras A–B.
"The Court of Appeal was wrong in embarking on the construction of Exh.P2 at all. If it could not how would it know whether or not there is a fair dispute as to the meaning of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement? ... where in an application for summary judgment and the only point involved is the construction of a document which document is capable of more than one meaning, then one tries and fathoms all the meanings capable of being given to the document, and if any of them gives the defendant a defence in law to the action, then there is a fair dispute as to the meaning of the document which will entitle the defendant to defend the action."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Summary judgment is inappropriate where a document is ambiguous. If the document is capable of multiple interpretations, and one interpretation gives the defendant a defence, the defendant is entitled to defend. The court should not resolve disputed meanings summarily. The principle protects defendants from being shut out where there is a genuine dispute over construction. The case must proceed to trial for full interpretation. The rule applies to contracts, deeds, and other documents. The court will consider whether the document is clear and unambiguous. If ambiguity exists, summary judgment should be refused. The principle ensures that parties with arguable cases are heard.
