INTERCHEMICALS LTD V. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC (2024) 11 NWLR (PT. 1950) 477
ON PECULIARITY AND PURPOSE OF UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE
Where a plaintiff brings a claim for a liquidated money demand, the rules of court allow it to be brought under a peculiar procedure called the undefended list procedure. The purpose of the procedure is to enable a plaintiff obtain summary judgment without going into a lengthy trial if he can prove his claim clearly and if the defendant is not able to set up a bona fide defence on the merit. Where the defendant files a defence, the suit is transferred from the undefended list to the general cause list. It is an abridged procedure meant to enable the plaintiff obtain summary judgment without trial. [Sodipo v. Lemninkainen OY (1986) 1NWLR (Pt. 15) 220; Aje Printing (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ekiti L.G.A. (2021) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1794) 498; Obaro v. Hassan (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) 425; Imoniyame Holdings Ltd. & Anor v. Soneb Enterprises Ltd. (2010)4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 561; Joel Okunrinboye Export Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Skye Bank Plc (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt.1138) 518 referred to.] (P. 491, paras. D-F).
INTERCHEMICALS LTD V. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC (2024) 11 NWLR (PT. 1950) 477
ON WHAT DEFENDANT MUST SHOW TO DISCLOSE A DEFENCE ON THE MERIT UNDER UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE
The undefended list procedure is not designed to shut out a defendant who has a genuine defence or a defence on the merit. To disclose a defence on the merit, the defendant’s affidavit must ex facie disclose a strong defence and not a sham defence intended to delay and frustrate justice. It must disclose a triable defence to warrant the action being transferred from the undefended list to the general cause list for a trial on the merit. In the instant case, the averments contained in the appellants’ affidavit could not pass for a defence on the merit. Despite the service of demand notices, exhibits INC5 and INC6 on the appellants by the respondent, the appellants’ defence was that they called for a reconciliation of the records with the respondent and that the respondent was paid by SPDC. The exhibited documents had no bearing on the question of whether the appellants were indebted to the respondent or whether they had repaid the credit facility granted them. Thus, the appellants’ defence was unsubstantiated. [Lewis v. U.B.A. (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1508) 329; Atagusa & Co. v. Gura (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 429 referred to (Pp. 491-492, paras. H-F).