Default

A contrary approach [that is, to permit the trial Court to re-open such a case] would amount to a usurpation of the exclusive prerogative of the appellate Court which is the only Court empowered to set it aside on appeal. The only alternative method of tampering with such a judgment on the merits would be by yet another action in the case of allegation of fraud. U.T.C Nig Ltd. v Pamotei (1989) 3 SCNJ 79, 124; (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.103) 244; (1989) LPELR – 3276 (SC).
Enunciating the rationale for this prescription, this Court in Wema Securities and Finance Plc v. NAIC (2015) 24833 (SC) 67 – 70, E-C, explained [per Nweze, JSC] 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) LPELR 3399 (SC) 27; Agwunene v Eze (1990) 3 NWLR (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 plaintiffs case, International Bank for West Africa Limited v. Unakalamba [1998] 9 NWLR (Pt. 565) 245.
It is usually meant to shorten the hearing of a suit where the claim is for a liquidated sum, Cooperative and Commerce Bank (Nigeria) Plc v. Samed Investment Company Limited [2000] 4 NWLR (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) 1 ALL NLR 91; Bendel Construction Co. Ltd. v Anglo Development Co. (Nigeria) Ltd (1972) ALL NLR (Pt.1) 153, Olubusola v. Standard Bank (1975) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 125; N. M. C. B. (Nig) Ltd v Obi (2010) LPELR -2051 (26) 26, which are virtually uncontested, Ataguba and Co v Gura Nig. Ltd. (2005) LPELR -584 (SC) 16-17; Macaulay v. NAL Merchant Bank Ltd. (1990) 4 NWLR (pt. 144) 283 at 324-325; Nwankwo and Anor v EDCS UA (2007) LPELR -2108 (SC) 46; Bank of the North v. Intra Bank S.A. (1969) 1 All NLR 91 Ataguba & Co. v. Gura (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 429; (2005) 2 SCNJ, 139, 157; (2005) 2 SC (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. 492; Sodipo v. Leminkalnen and Ors [1986] NWLR (pt. 15) 220; UBA and Anor v Jargaba (2007) LPELR -3399 (SC) 24; Obaro v Hassan (2013) LPELR -20089 (SC); Planwell Ltd v Ogala [2003] 18 NWLR (pt. 852) 478; [2003] 12 SCNJ 58, 68. In such a case, it would be inexpedient to allow a defendant to defend for the mere purpose of delay. Sodipo v Leminkainen [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 220; Adebisi Macgregor Ass Ltd v N.M.B Ltd [1996] 2 NWLR (Pt. 43) 378; [1996] 2 SCNJ 72, 81."
See also C. C. Nweze, Law and Procedure in Suits on the Undefendent List (Enugu; Hamson Publishers, 1998) 45.

AKAHALL & SONS LIMITED V. NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION: LGC(20/1/2017)D-E