UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "Now, it is no longer open to argument that the undefended list procedure is a truncated form of the civil litigation process peculiar to the adversarial judicial system. Under the said procedure, ordinary hearing is rendered unnecessary due, in the main, to the absence of an issue to be tried, UBA and Anor. v. Jargaba (2007) L.P.E.L.R.-3399 (S.C.) 27; (2007) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1045) 247; Agwuneme v. Eze (1990) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 137) 242, Essentially, therefore it is designed to secure quick justice and to avoid the injustice likely to occur when there is no genuine defence on the merits to the plaintiff’s case, International Bank for West Africa Limited v. Unakalamba (1998) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 565) 245. It is, usually, meant to shorten the hearing of a suit where the claim is for a liquidated sum, Co-operative and Commence Bank (Nigeria) Plc v. Samed Investment Company Limited (2000) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 651) 19. Put differently, the object of the rules relating to actions on the undefended list is to ensure quick dispatch of certain types of cases, such as those involving debts or liquidated money claims, Bank of the North v. Intra Bank SA (1969) S.C.N.L.R. 98; Bendel Construction Co, Ltd. v. Anglocan Development Co. (Nigeria) Ltd. (1972) All N.L.R. (Pt. 1) 153; Olubusola v. Standard Bank (1975) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt. 1) 125; N.M.C.B. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Obi (2010) L.P.E.L.R. -2051 (26) 26 (2010) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1213) 169; which are, virtually, uncontested, Ataguba and Co. v. Gura Nig. Ltd. (2005) L.P.E.L.R. -584 (S.C.) 16-17 (2005) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 927) 429; Macaulay v. N.A.L. Merchant Bank Ltd. (1990) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 144) 283 at 324-325; Nwankwo and Anor. v. E.D.C.S.V.A. (2007) L.P.E.L.R. -2108 (S.C.) 46; (2007) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1027) 377; Bank of the North v. Intra Bank S.A. (1969) 1 All N.L.R. 91; Ataguba & Co. v. Gura (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 927) 429, (2005) 2 S.C.N.J., 139, 157, (2005) 2 S.C. (Pt. 1) 101. Such rules are, thus, designed to relieve the Courts of the rigour of pleadings and burden of hearing tedious evidence on sham defences mounted by defendants who are just determined to dribble and cheat plaintiffs out of reliefs they are normally entitled to because the case is, patently clear and unassailable, Cow v. Casey (1949) 1 K. B, 474; Sodipo v. Leminkainen OY and Ors. (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 15) 220; U.B.A. Plc and Anor. v. Jargaba (2007) L.P.E.L.R.- 3399 (S.C.) 24; (2007) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1045) 247; Obaro v. Hassan (2013) L.P.E.L.R.- 20089 (S.C.); (2013) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1357) 425; Plan Well Watershed Ltd. v. Ogala (2003) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 852) 478, (2003) 12 S.C.N.J. 58, 68. In such a case it would be inexpedient to allow a defendant to defend for the mere purpose of delay, Sodipo v....