The Limits of Negative Declarations in Judicial Practice. Volume II

Abstract

While negative declarations serve an important role in clarifying that a party has no right or entitlement, courts do not grant them as of course. The discretionary nature of declaratory relief means that certain circumstances preclude their use. This article examines situations where negative declarations cannot be employed, drawing from Nigerian and comparative jurisprudence, and highlighting the policy reasons behind judicial restraint in this area.

1. Introduction

A negative declaration is a judicial pronouncement that a right, power, or legal status does not exist. Unlike affirmative declarations, which establish rights, negative declarations extinguish unfounded claims. For example, a court may declare that a defendant has no title to land or that a statute is unconstitutional.
However, negative declarations are not unlimited in scope. Courts exercise restraint in granting them, as they may unfairly prejudice defendants, invite hypothetical adjudication, or waste judicial resources. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently stressed that declaratory reliefs, particularly negative ones, will not be granted unless there is a real dispute requiring resolution.

2. Nature of Judicial Discretion in Negative Declarations.

Declaratory relief is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion. In Guaranty Trust Bank Plc v. Innoson Nig. Ltd (2022) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1838) 209, the court emphasised that a claimant must establish a recognisable legal interest before a declaration can be made.
Negative declarations are especially sensitive because they involve denying rights rather than affirming them. Courts are therefore reluctant to grant them where doing so would lead to uncertainty, injustice, or academic pronouncements.

3. Situations Where Negative Declarations Cannot Be Used

3.1 In the Absence of a Legal Right or Interest

A party cannot seek a negative declaration unless they demonstrate a recognisable legal interest that requires protection. Courts will not entertain a request to merely declare that an opponent has no right where the claimant cannot show how such declaration affects their own rights.
Example: A person cannot ask the court to declare that a stranger has no right over a property unless they themselves have an interest in that property.

3.2 Where the Matter is Hypothetical or Academic

Negative declarations cannot be used to obtain rulings on theoretical or speculative issues. Courts only decide live disputes.
In A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1, the Supreme Court held that courts are not academic institutions and cannot give declarations on abstract questions.
Thus, a party cannot seek a negative declaration merely to settle curiosity or political debates.

3.3 Where Declaratory Relief Would Serve No Practical Purpose.

Courts refuse negative declarations that will not resolve any practical dispute. Judicial time is not spent making declarations that have no real effect on the rights of parties.
Example: A request that the court declare that a repealed law “has no effect” would be struck out, since the law is already defunct.

3.4 To Avoid Multiplicity of Suits or Abuse of Court Process.

Negative declarations cannot be used as a backdoor appeal or to relitigate matters already settled. Where an issue has been decided, the principle of res judicata prevents parties from seeking a negative declaration to undermine the judgment.
Example: A defendant who has lost a title suit cannot file a fresh action seeking a negative declaration that the claimant has no title.

3.5 Where They Would Infringe the Rights of Non-Parties.

Courts cannot issue negative declarations that bind or affect the rights of persons not before the court. Since declaratory judgments operate in personam, not in rem, the court cannot pronounce generally that “no person in Nigeria has the right to do X” unless the proper parties are joined.

3.6 In Sensitive Constitutional and Political Questions Without Justiciability.

Courts decline negative declarations in areas that are non-justiciable or reserved for political discretion. For example, provisions under Chapter II of the Nigerian Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy) cannot ground a negative declaration because they are not enforceable in court.
Example: A claim that “the government has no right to neglect social welfare obligations under Chapter II” would fail.

4. Policy Reasons for Restraint

The refusal of courts to grant negative declarations in these circumstances is guided by policy considerations:
1. Judicial economy: Pvoiding waste of time on hypothetical matters.
2. Fairness: Preventing one party from obtaining oppressive declarations against another without genuine dispute.
3. Respect for separation of powers: Avoiding judicial encroachment into political or non-justiciable questions.
4. Finality of litigation: Discouraging endless challenges through declaratory backdoors.

5. Conclusion

Negative declarations are powerful remedies, but their use is carefully limited by judicial discretion. They cannot be granted in the absence of a legal right, on hypothetical matters, for academic purposes, against non-parties, or where they undermine settled decisions.
The principle ensures that courts do not overstep their boundaries or render advisory opinions, but instead focus on resolving live disputes. For legal practitioners, this means that applications for negative declarations must be carefully structured around demonstrable interests and justiciable controversies.
Ultimately, the restraint exercised by courts reflects the delicate balance between granting relief and avoiding misuse of judicial power.