Nonsuit is a judgment given against a plaintiff in which the court dismisses a case because the plaintiff either was unable to make an adequate showing or is unwilling to continue with the case. A nonsuit may be voluntary or involuntary.A nonsuit refers to a legal action to dismiss a lawsuit. This dismissal can be voluntary or involuntary.
A non suit is appropriate where there is no satisfactory evidence enabling the court to give judgment to either of the parties and wronging neither; ADELUSOLA V AKINDE 2004, 120 LRCN 4683 at 4687; ACB V YESUFU 1980 1 – 2 S.C. 48; OLAGBEMIRO V AJAGUNEGBADE 1990 3 NWLR Pt. 136, 37. According to Nolo’s Plain English (Online) Law Dictionary, a Non-Suit is “a court’s dismissal of a case because the plaintiff does not provide sufficient legal showing for the judge to rule in (his) favour”. Another online medium, US Legal.com, defines non-suit as “a termination of a legal action without an actual determination of the controversy on the merits . . . it is (usually) a ruling that in the judge’s opinion, there is no evidence which could prove the plaintiff’s case”.

A voluntary nonsuit refers to when the plaintiff (the individual who filed the case) willingly discontinues the case.

An involuntary nonsuit describes an action by the court to dismiss a lawsuit if the court finds reasons to dismiss the case either through a motion of dismissal filed by the defendant or when it is not up to legal standards.

In the common law courts (e.g. the Court of Common Pleas) a party to a civil action had a right of withdraw their claim/counterclaim by nonsuit up until verdict or judgment without prejudice to the launch of a fresh action.

There was an equivalent right in the Court of Chancery to dismiss one's own bill (as actions in that court were known as). When the courts were merged by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, provision was made for the procedure to governed by rules of court. The 1875 rules provided for non suiting but also made provision for setting aside a judgment of nonsuit.
In 1883 the nonsuit provisions were repealed and replaced by discontinuance of an action.

Thereafter it was subsequently ruled that nonsuiting ceased to exist in the High Court of Justice having been wholly displaced by the provisions relating to discontinuance In the County Courts, the County Court rules continued to provide for nonsuiting until the Rules of the Supreme Court and the County Court Rules were repealed and replaced by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which only provided for discontinuance.
This brought nonsuiting to an end in mainstream England and Wales (although one cannot comment for e.g. actions in the High Court of Chivalry).

In Nigeria, the various uniform Civil Procedure Rules of the High Courts contain virtually identical provisions on the circumstances in which a court can order a non-suit. For instance, Order 34 Rule 1 of the Kano High Court Rules 2014, provides that:

“Where satisfactory evidence is not given entitled the plaintiff or defendant to the judgement of the court, the judge may suo motu or on application, non-suit the plaintiff, but the parties’ legal practitioners shall have the right to make submissions about the propriety or otherwise of making such order”.


By
Adesanya Toluwanimi Glory
300 Level Law Student
ADELEKE University