LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Judgments and Orders — Distinction Between Nullity and Erroneous Judgment
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A judgment may be declared a nullity due to lack of statutory jurisdiction or failure to fulfil a necessary condition precedent. A distinction must be drawn between an order a court is not competent to make (nullity) and a judgment that, even though erroneous in law and fact, is within the court's competence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in General and Aviation Services Ltd v. Thahal (2004) NLC-2222000(SC) at pp. 22–23; Paras E–A.
"A judgment may be declared a nullity due to some fundamental vice such as lack of statutory jurisdiction to hear the case, or failure to fulfil a necessary condition precedent... A distinction must be drawn between an order or a judgment which a court is not competent to make and a judgment which, even though erroneous in law and in fact, is within the court's competence. The ruling of the trial court in the present case was not a nullity. It was based on perverse findings and was wrongly decided."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A nullity occurs when the court lacks jurisdiction or fails to satisfy a condition precedent; such orders are void ab initio and can be challenged at any time. An erroneous judgment, however wrong in law or fact, remains valid and binding unless set aside on appeal. This serves distinguishing between fundamental jurisdictional defects and mere errors in reasoning. The court cannot treat a perverse but competent decision as a nullity; the proper remedy for erroneous judgment is appeal, not collateral attack. The distinction determines whether the order is void or merely voidable.