Introduction
In Nigerian civil jurisprudence, the concept of “arrest of judgment” has consistently been held to be alien to the rules of court. Attempts by parties to prevent the court from delivering a reserved judgment have been described by the appellate courts as an abuse of judicial process. Recent decisions of the Court of Appeal reaffirm that no party has the right to frustrate or suspend the court’s duty to pronounce judgment once a matter has been heard and reserved for decision.
Nigerian appellate courts have repeatedly condemned attempts by litigants to prevent a court from delivering a reserved judgment, describing such attempts as inconsistent with established rules of civil procedure.
Arrest of Judgment Not Recognized in Civil Proceedings
In AMAECHI & ORS v. NWEKE-WORLU & ORS (2020) LPELR-51142(CA),the Court of Appeal restated that the rules of court make no provision for arresting a judgment that is about to be delivered. The court condemned a motion filed by a party to prevent the trial judge from delivering a ruling on an interim injunction, holding that:
“…What the Motion on Notice was designed to do was to prevent the delivery of the ruling of motion for Interim Injunction by the learned trial Judge. This is illegal and unsupported by the rules of Court…”
The court concluded that the learned trial judge was right in dismissing the motion, emphasizing that such a procedure is unknown to Nigerian civil procedure and cannot be sustained in law.
Applications Meant to Arrest Judgment Are an Abuse of Court Process
Similarly, in ADEOGUN-PHILLIPS v. GATEWAY PORTLAND CEMENT LTD & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62107(CA), the appellant attempted to reopen his case and file a counter-affidavit after the matter had been reserved for judgment. The Court of Appeal condemned the move as an abuse of process, stressing that:
“…the rules of Court in Nigeria do not make provision for an application to arrest a judgment which is about to be delivered by a Court and that any such application cannot be described as proper application…”
The court cited a long line of authorities, including Newswatch Communications Ltd v. Atta (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144 and Sakamori Construction (Nig.) Ltd v. L.S.W.C. (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1823) 33, reaffirming that the concept of arresting judgment is not recognized under Nigerian civil procedure.
The appellate court added that since the appellant had ample opportunity to file his counter-affidavit but failed to do so until judgment stage, his conduct amounted to bad faith and an attempt to delay justice. The trial court’s refusal of the application was therefore proper and would not be disturbed on appeal.
Note that applications filed after hearing often involve affidavits and counter-affidavits, which form a central part of motion practice in Nigerian courts.
When an Application Filed After Judgment Is Reserved Does Not Amount to Arresting Judgment
However, the Court of Appeal clarified that not all applications filed after judgment has been reserved automatically amount to attempts to arrest judgment. In IDAKWO & ANOR v. FRN (2025) LPELR-81416(CA), the court made a distinction between an application to arrest judgment and other legitimate post-hearing applications.
Quoting with approval the decision in Ajagungbade v. Governor & Ors, the court explained:
“…The fact that an application is made to a Court after judgment is reserved does not ipso facto make it an application to arrest the judgment of Court…”
The court went further to note that arrest of judgment, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, primarily applies to criminal proceedings—for instance, where a judgment is stayed due to a defect apparent on the face of the record or lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, an application made under valid provisions of the rules (such as for extension of time) cannot automatically be classified as one seeking to arrest judgment.
Conclusion
The position of the law remains clear: in civil matters, there is no procedural avenue for a party to arrest a judgment that has been heard and reserved for delivery. Any such attempt constitutes an abuse of court process and will be dismissed. Only in limited criminal contexts, and for specific jurisdictional reasons, can an arrest of judgment validly arise. Courts have repeatedly warned litigants and counsel against such tactics aimed at delaying the administration of justice.
Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers seeking guidance on specific legal issues should consult a qualified legal practitioner.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.