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

CONCLUSION DRAWN IN AFFIDAVIT NEED NOT BE LEGAL CONCLUSION FOR STRIKING OUT

Besides, I do not think that view has any merit either by way of the interpretation of the said Section 87 of the Evidence Act or by looking broadly at the word “conclusion” which covers any conclusion based on fact or law as a result of a process of reasoning. It is the same process by which opinion or deduction is arrived at or inference drawn. Therefore to say that the conclusion meant under Section 87 is legal conclusion is restrictive and misleading.

— Uwaifo, JSC. Bamaiyi v State (SC 292/2000, Supreme Court, 6th April 2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

AVERMENTS IN AFFIDAVIT NOT CHALLENGED ARE DEEMED ADMITTED

These averments were not challenged or denied by the Appellant. No further affidavit was filed by the Appellant to deny that it ever agreed to submit to the Jurisdiction of the English Court. The Appellant did not challenge the Judgment by way of appeal nor did it deny the averments in the Counter Affidavits. I therefore agree with the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent that where facts in an affidavit are not challenged, they are deemed admitted.

— J.O. Bada, JCA. Conoil v Vitol (2011) – CA/A/213/2010

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?

INCONSISTENCY IN PARTY’S OWN AFFIDAVIT – COURT CANNOT HELP

In the case in hand, the contradictions or conflicts in affidavit evidence did not relate to the affidavit evidence filed by the appellant, on the one hand, and that filed by the respondent, on the other; rather, the contradiction arose only in respect of the appellant’s averments in his numerous affidavits. Therefore, the age-long principle of fielding witnesses to furnish oral evidence for the resolution of the contradictions between the two separate sets of evidence by the parties did not arise. Rather, it was self-evident from the judgment of the lower court that the contradictions alluded to were those that arose from the inconsistencies in the depositions in the appellant’s own affidavits. Clearly, where the appellant’s case is plagued by inconsistencies or contradictions, there is no obligation, in such circumstances, on the court seized of the matter to arrange for oral evidence to be called for the purposes of making or resolving the contradictions in the appellant’s case. The law frowns on a party who approbates in one breath and reprobates in another. But having said that, I must hurry to state that the onus is undoubtedly on the appellant confronted with its self-created contradictions to fully and properly explain away the contradictions to the satisfaction of the court. Failure to do so is bound to leave an indelible dent on the appellant’s case. It is not open to the court to enter into the arena of judicial conflict between the parties in order to resolve the contradictions within the appellant’s own affidavit evidence.

— Achike JSC. Momah v VAB Petro (2000) – SC. 183/1995

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE CONFLICT IN BOTH AFFIDAVITS, COURT WILL CALL FOR ORAL EVIDENCE

On the question of conflict of affidavit evidence placed before the lower court which appellant’s learned Counsel had submitted should be resolved by oral evidence in order to act on such evidence, our case law is replete with authorities that where a matter is being tried on affidavit evidence and the court is confronted with conflicting or contradictory evidence relied on by the parties on a material issue before the court; it is the law that the court cannot resolve such conflict by evaluating the conflicting evidence but is obliged to call for oral evidence in order to achieve resolution of the conflict. (See Falobi v Falobi (1976) 9 & 10 SC 1 and Akinsete v Akidutire (1966) All NLR 137).

— Achike JSC. Momah v VAB Petro (2000) – SC. 183/1995

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?

No more related dictum to show.