The Principle of Negative and Affirmative Declarations in Law

Abstract

The principle of negative and affirmative declarations occupies an important position in jurisprudence and judicial remedies. Declarations, whether affirmative or negative, serve as judicial pronouncements that clarify rights, obligations, and legal relationships without necessarily awarding damages or ordering specific performance. This article examines the meaning, scope, and consequences of negative and affirmative declarations, highlighting their application in Nigerian law and comparative jurisprudence. It also interrogates when courts are inclined to issue such declarations and the legal certainty they provide in dispute resolution.

1. Introduction

The remedy of declaration has long been recognised as a flexible judicial tool for resolving disputes without the need for coercive enforcement. Unlike injunctions or damages, a declaration is essentially a judicial statement affirming or denying a legal right or status. The Supreme Court of Nigeria in Egbunike v. African Continental Bank Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 375) 34 held that a declaration is not an executory order but a solemn affirmation by the court which parties are bound to respect.
Declarations are of two broad types: affirmative declarations and negative declarations. While an affirmative declaration establishes the existence of a right or status, a negative declaration denies the existence of such right or status. Together, they provide balance in judicial decision-making, preventing injustice by either confirming a party’s entitlement or negating unfounded claims.

2. Meaning and Nature of Declarations

A declaration is a formal statement by a court pronouncing upon the legal position of the parties. It is not an order of enforcement but a statement of legal truth.
Affirmative Declaration: A positive pronouncement of the existence of a legal right, duty, or relationship. For example, a court may declare that a claimant is the lawful owner of a parcel of land.
Negative Declaration: A pronouncement that a right, duty, or status does not exist. For instance, a court may declare that a defendant has no right of occupation over a disputed property.
As Lord Denning observed in Pyx Granite Co. Ltd v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1960] AC 260, the remedy of declaration “is a flexible one which the courts have always had inherent jurisdiction to grant.” This flexibility makes it useful in property law, constitutional adjudication, contract law, and administrative law.

3. What Declarations Entail.

The issuance of declarations entails that the court has examined the rights of parties and pronounced a binding legal statement which may:
1. Affirm rights: thereby establishing enforceable entitlements.
2. Negate rights: thereby foreclosing further assertion of a non-existent right.
3. Guide future conduct: by providing certainty in relationships.

In Guaranty Trust Bank Plc v. Innoson Nig. Ltd (2022) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1838) 209, the court reiterated that declaratory reliefs are discretionary, not granted as a matter of course, but only where the claimant establishes a clear legal right.

4. Consequences of Negative and Affirmative Declarations

4.1 Affirmative Declarations

Establish legal certainty: By recognising the claimant’s right, the court provides a foundation for further remedies such as injunctions or damages.
Confer legal status: For instance, a declaration of title to land grants the claimant the legal recognition to exercise proprietary rights.
Serve as precedents: Affirmative declarations often clarify grey areas of law.

4.2 Negative Declarations

Prevent abuse of rights: By declaring that a defendant has no title or power, the court prevents wrongful assertions.
Bar future claims: Once a court declares that a right does not exist, the doctrine of res judicata applies to prevent relitigation.
Invalidate state actions: Negative declarations are frequently used in constitutional law to pronounce statutes or administrative actions unconstitutional. (A.G. Abia State v. A.G. Federation (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 809) 124).

5. When Courts Use Affirmative and Negative Declarations

5.1 Affirmative Declarations

These are typically granted where:
● A claimant seeks recognition of ownership or title (e.g., land law).
● A party seeks confirmation of contractual obligations.
● Constitutional rights are being asserted.

Example: In Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172, the Supreme Court granted a declaration affirming the claimant’s entitlement under an agreement.

5.2 Negative Declarations

● Courts are more cautious in granting negative declarations, as they effectively nullify claims. They are granted where:
● A party seeks certainty that an opponent has no right or entitlement.
● There is a need to prevent oppressive assertions of power.
● Statutes or governmental actions are challenged for unconstitutionality.

Example: In A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1412) 217, the Supreme Court issued a declaration that certain federal actions encroaching on state powers were unconstitutional.

6. Policy Considerations

The policy underlying negative and affirmative declarations is the pursuit of legal certainty. Without declarations, parties may be left in perpetual doubt as to their rights. Furthermore, in constitutional democracies like Nigeria, declaratory reliefs are instrumental in enforcing the supremacy of the Constitution.
However, courts exercise caution: declarations are not granted in abstract or hypothetical cases. The claimant must show a legal interest in the subject matter. The principle was reinforced in A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1, where the court held that declaratory reliefs must be anchored on real disputes, not academic speculation.

7. Conclusion

The principle of negative and affirmative declarations is central to the judicial role of clarifying rights and obligations. While affirmative declarations establish entitlements and statuses, negative declarations safeguard against wrongful claims and invalid exercises of power. Both remedies ensure legal certainty, finality, and the orderly functioning of law.
For legal practitioners, declaratory reliefs remain a powerful tool, especially in constitutional litigation and property disputes. For courts, they remain a reminder of judicial restraint and balance, ensuring that law speaks not only to affirm rights but also to deny false claims.