The law is that a plaintiff’s averment of facts must be met by the defendant frontally and categorically. Once a traverse is not met directly, the defendant is taken to have admitted it. See Owosho v. Adebowale v. Dada (1984) 7 SC pg.149. Such traverse to be valid must be related to the proceeding and subsequent paragraphs of the statement of defence.
– Ogunwumiju JCA. NBC v. Olarewaju (2006) – CA/IL/43/2004
SHARE ON
As in law what is admitted need no further proof Kamalu v. Umunna (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt.505) 321 at 326.
— O.O. Adekeye, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000
There is no need to establish the truth of a fact already admitted. See Ajikawo v. Ansaido (Nig) Ltd (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 359.
— N.S. Ngwuta, JSC. Henry Nwokearu V. The State (SC.227/2011, 24 MAY 2013)
I may repeat that an admission does not necessarily mean proof of what is contained therein. An admission relied upon by any party is not ipso facto accepted to be the truth by the court once it is not in accordance with the truth of the case. It is the duty of the court to decide the case in accordance with the facts pleaded and proved to be true.
— Olatawura JSC. African Continental Bank Ltd. v. Alhaji Umaru Gwagwada (SC.26/1990, 29 APR 1994)
“11. At law where facts are admitted or not traversed in the pleadings, a party is not obliged to lead any further evidence. The documents on which the plaintiff relied on in this proceeding were all admitted by the defendant who also relied on all those documents as well as her own. In such an instance, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to provide oral evidence to prove these facts as they are admitted by the defendant. Thus, defendant’s contention that plaintiff did not provide evidence to substantiate his claims and should be deemed to have waived them is not acceptable in law and so same is respectfully rejected by the Court.”
— Ayika v Liberia (2012) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/09/12
Now an admission is a statement, oral or written (expressed or implied) which is made by a party to civil proceedings and which statement is adverse to his case. It is admissible as evidence against the maker as the truth of the fact asserted in the statement.
– Kawu, JSC. Ogunnaike v. Ojayemi (1987)
On the sub issue as to whether the court has the power to expunge from its record evidence or documents earlier admitted without objection by counsel, it is settled law that the courts can do that and has been doing that over the years; see NIPC Ltd. v. Thompson Organization Ltd. (1966) 1 NMLR 99 at 104 where LEWIS, JSC stated the law as follows:- “It is of course the duty of counsel to object to admissible evidence and the duty of trial court any way to refuse to admit inadmissible evidence, but if notwithstanding this evidence is still through oversight or otherwise admitted then it is the duty of the court to when it comes to give judgment to treat the inadmissible evidence as if it had never been admitted”.
— Onnoghen, JSC. Kubor v. Dickson (2012) – SC.369/2012
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry