Judicial Attitude Towards Unconscionable Contracts in Nigerian Commercial Law: Developments Since 2018

The doctrine of unconscionability provides an equitable mechanism through which courts can invalidate or modify contracts that are oppressively one-sided or exploit significant power imbalances between contracting parties. This study examines recent judicial attitudes towards unconscionable contracts in Nigerian commercial law, reviewing Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions from 2018 to 2024. Using a doctrinal methodology, the research analyses how Nigerian courts have applied the doctrine in consumer credit agreements, standard-form contracts, and employment contexts, comparing the Nigerian approach with developments in Canadian, Australian, and English jurisprudence. The study draws on primary data from interviews with 20 commercial law practitioners in Lagos and Abuja to understand how unconscionability arguments are pleaded and received in practice. Findings reveal that Nigerian courts have generally been reluctant to apply unconscionability to commercial contracts between parties of ostensibly equal bargaining power, preferring objective contract enforcement. However, a small but growing body of jurisprudence is beginning to develop in consumer and employment contexts. The research argues that Nigerian law needs a clearer articulation of the doctrine's scope to address structural inequalities in standard-form contracting. Recommendations include legislative recognition of unconscionability as a contractual ground for relief and judicial education on equity-based contract defences. Keywords: unconscionable contracts, commercial law, equity, judicial attitude, Nigerian contract law