Principle Statement

The various heads of amount in Exhibit F, the 'Bill of Charges' relied upon by the respondent, were estimates arrived at by the unilateral opinion of the respondent which were not based on any mutually agreed ascertainable standard. There was no fixed amount to the parties prior to the alleged breach of the oral agreement which the respondent said he had with the appellant. The claim of the respondent, in the circumstance can only be categorized as unliquidated damages. It ought not to have been placed and determined under the undefended list in the first instance.

Ratio Decidendi (Source)

Per Fabiyi, JSC, in G.M.O. Nworah & Sons Co. Ltd v. Akputa (2010) NLC-123-153-2006(SC) at p. 5; Paras A–C.

"The various heads of amount in Exhibit F, the 'Bill of Charges' relied upon by the respondent, were estimates arrived at by the unilateral opinion of the respondent which were not based on any mutually agreed ascertainable standard. There was no fixed amount to the parties prior to the alleged breach of the oral agreement which the respondent said he had with the appellant. The claim of the respondent, in the circumstance can only be categorized as unliquidated damages. It ought not to have been placed and determined under the undefended list in the first instance."
View Judgment →

Explanation / Scope

This principle establishes that claims based on unilateral estimates without mutual agreement are unliquidated damages and unsuitable for the undefended list. The principle applies where the amount is not fixed or ascertainable by agreed standards. It ensures that only liquidated sums are placed on the undefended list. The principle reflects the requirement for certainty in undefended list claims. It prevents summary judgment on disputed amounts. The court must determine if the claim is liquidated. The principle provides guidance on the suitability of claims for the undefended list.

Cases Applying This Principle

G.M.O. Nworah & Sons Co. Ltd v. Afam Akputa