STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

AFFIDAVIT SHOULD CONFINE TO FACTS ONLY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Now, an affidavit meant for use in Court stands as evidence and must as near as possible conform to oral evidence that is admissible in Court. A deponent to an affidavit is therefore to confine himself to facts and circumstances. See BAMAIYI vs. THE STATE (2001) 4 SC (PT 1) 18 at 29. Often times it is only a thin line that separates facts or circumstances which are permissible for use in an affidavit, from depositions which are legal argument or prayer or conclusion, which are not permissible for use in an affidavit. Happily, the Supreme Court per Uwaifo, JSC in BAMAIYI vs. STATE (supra) at 32-33 laid down the test to be applied as follows: “The test for doing this, in my view, is to examine each of the paragraphs deposed to in the affidavit to ascertain whether it is fit only as submission which counsel ought to urge upon the Court. If it is, then it is likely to be either an objection or legal argument which ought to be pressed in oral argument; or it may be conclusion upon an issue which ought to be left to the discretion of the Court either to make a finding or to reach a 15 decision upon through its process of reasoning. But if it is in the form of evidence which a witness may be entitled to place before the Court in his testimony on oath and it is legally receivable to prove or disprove some fact in dispute, then it qualifies as a statement of facts and circumstances which may be deposed to in an affidavit. It therefore means that prayers, objections and legal arguments are matters that may be pressed by counsel in Court and are not fit for a witness either in oral testimony or in affidavit evidence, while conclusions should not be drawn by witnesses but left for the Court to reach.”

— U.A. Ogakwu, JCA. Lagos State v NDIC (CA/L/124/2003(R), Court of Appeal, June 2nd 2020)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

affidavit

NOT ALL UNCONTRADICTED AVERMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT

✓ In B.B.B. Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs A.C-Bc Ltd (2004} 2 NWLR (Pt. 858) 527@ 550551 F-A, per Pats-Acholonu, JSC as follows: although it is the general rule that uncontradicted evidence from which reasonable people can draw but one conclusion may not ordinarily be rejected by the court but must be accepted as true; it is also true to say that the court is not in all the circumstances bound to accept as true testimony an evidence that is uncontradicted where it is willfully or corruptly false, incredible, improbable or sharply falls below the standard expected in a particular case.

✓ It was held in R-Benkay (Nig) Ltd. v. Cadbury (Nig) Pie. (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 596 @ 624 C – per Peter-Odili, JSC, inter alia, as follows: “… it is not fl fait accompli that once there are averments in an affidavit which are not controverted the result would be a favourable disposition to the position of the party who had proffered the disposition. This is so because all averments must go under the surgical knife of evaluation which is done by the court as a matter of duty to see its acceptability as happened in this case. See also: Gonzee (Nig) Ltd Vs NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 634@ 650 D, cited and relied upon.

Was this dictum helpful?

FAILURE OF COURT TO CONSIDER AFFIDAVIT IS A BREACH OF FAIR HEARING

In Order 6 Rules (2) and (4) of the Rules of this court, in an application for leave to appeal or for enlargement of time within which to seek leave to appeal, a respondent may, if he so desires, file in reply a counter affidavit. It follows that in considering the application for leave to appeal, the court has a duty to also consider the counter affidavit of the Respondent before arriving at a decision. Failure to consider the counter affidavit, as was done in this case is not only an irregularity but a clear denial of fair hearing to the Respondent/Applicant herein.

— J.I. Okoro JSC. Citec v. Francis (SC.116/2011, 21 February 2014)

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT NOT CHALLENGED IS DEEMED ADMITTED

In Badejo V. Fed. Min. of Education (supra) at page 15; it was held by the Supreme Court that:- “where an affidavit is filed deposing to certain facts and the other party does not file a counter affidavit or reply to a counter affidavit, the facts deposed to in the affidavit would be deemed unchallenged and undisputed…they are therefore admitted.”

Was this dictum helpful?

DISTINCTION BETWEEN WITNESS STATEMENT ON OATH & AFFIDAVIT

In Okpa v. Irek & Anor. [2012] LPELR-8033 (CA) held thus: This court has consistently held that a witness statement on oath is different from affidavit evidence. An affidavit is a statement of fact which the maker or deponent swears to be true to the best of his knowledge. It is a court Process in writing deposing to facts within the knowledge of the deponent. It is documentary evidence which the court can admit in the absence of any unchallenged evidence. Akpokeniovo v. Agas [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt. 881) 394. On the contrary a witness statement is not evidence. It only becomes evidence after the witness is sworn in court and adopts his witness statement. At this stage at best it becomes evidence in chief. It is thereafter subjected to cross examination after which it becomes evidence to be used by the Court. If the opponent fails to cross examine the witness, it is taken as the true situation of facts contained therein.

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT SHOWING CAUSE TO DEFEND MUST DISCLOSE A DEFENCE

Furthermore, an affidavit showing cause why a defendant should be granted leave to defend an action must disclose a defence on the merit setting out the details and particulars of the defence. The popular expression is that the affidavit must “condescend upon particulars.” The affidavit showing cause must disclose facts which will at least throw some doubt on the plaintiff’s case. See U.B.A. Plc Vs Jargaba (Supra); Macaulay Vs NAL Merchant Bank Ltd (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 144) 283: Nishizawa Ltd Vs Jethwani (1984) 12 SC 234.

— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun JSC. B.O. Lewis v. United Bank for Africa Plc. (SC.143/2006, 14 January 2016)

Was this dictum helpful?

MERE GENERAL TRAVERSE IN AFFIDAVIT IS NOT ENOUGH

ARUWA v. ABDULKADIR (2002) FWLR 677 ratio 3, it was held, concerning the defendant’s affidavit, thus: “… The defendants affidavit must condescend upon particulars and should as far as possible specifically deal with the plaintiff’s claim and the affidavit in support thereof and state clearly and concisely what the defence is and what facts are relied upon to support it. The same affidavit defence should also state whether the defence relates to the whole or part of the claim, and in the latter case, it should specify that part of the claim. A mere general statement or denial, that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff is not enough to constitute a defence, unless the grounds on which the defendant relies as showing that he is not indebted are stated in the affidavit.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.