"It is indeed correct to argue that money claimed under a summary judgment proceeding is one which must be certain or liquidated or readily ascertainable. This Court gave an wholesome analysis of what constitutes a liquidated money demand in the case of DIGITAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGY LTD & ANOR v. ANDI (2017) LPELR-43446 (CA). (Pp. 23-24, Paras. A-B) Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.,thus: "There is no doubt that several Supreme Court authorities have held that the summary judgment procedure is for liquidated money demands. ?The term liquidated money demand has been held to be a sum of money previously agreed upon by the parties to a contract, if the action is based on a breach of contract. See Akpan v. Akwa Ibom Property & Inv. Co. Ltd (2013) 6 SCNJ 400. It has also been defined as a definite settled sum which the defendant cannot deny. Liquidated money demand was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Maja v. Samouris (2002) 7 NWLR Pt. 765 Pg. 78 as an ascertained claim or specific amount; which means there is nothing more that needs to be done to determine the quantum of extent of the defendant's liability. When the amount to be recovered is not agreed upon but depends on circumstances and is fixed by opinion or estimate, it is said not to be liquidated. In essence, the amount claimed must be ascertainable, and if based on a contract, it must have been accepted upon by the parties thereto. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition at page 246, Liquidated money demand means an amount previously agreed on by the parties or that can be precisely determined by operation of law. At the same page it defines unliquidated claims a claim in which the amount owed has not been determined." "See: General Tyres W.A. Ltd. v. Spring Bank Plc. (2010) LPELR-9067(CA)." In LIBRA IMPORTS NIGERIA LIMITED v. ACCESS BANK PLC Suit No; CA/L/450/2010 Per TUKUR , J.C.A. (Pp. 7-8, Paras. D-F)