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!

PLEADING, IS PLEADING FACTS UPON WHICH A LAW CAN STAND ON

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

While I come to the conclusion that the appellants did not plead co-ownership, I should not be taken as making the point that they should have included in their pleadings, the legal word of co-ownership or its synonym joint-ownership. That is not what I mean. As a matter of law, a party cannot plead law in his pleadings. Although there are exceptions here and there to this general principle of law, particularly as it relates to the plea of some specific defences to certain actions, the matter before me, does not extend to that. All that the appellants were expected to do was to plead enough facts upon which the law of co-ownership can stand and keep its shoulders high, awaiting the lawyer to replenish it with either statutory authorities or decided case. But that was not done here, and the trial Judge, could not have supplied it. .

— Tobi, JCA. Abraham v Olorunfunmi (1990) – CA/L/83/89

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

pleadings

EVIDENCE ON AVERMENTS NOT IN PLEADINGS GOES TO NO ISSUE

Now, it is now well settled that in civil proceeding commenced at the High Court, parties are bound by their pleadings and any evidence which is at variance with the averments in the pleadings goes to no issue and should be disregarded by the court.

– Oguntade JSC. Ejike v. Onukogu (2005)

Was this dictum helpful?

NATURE OF PROOF OF PLEADINGS

It must be appreciated that there cannot be a better notice of a case a party intends to make than his pleading. It is a mere notice and can never be substituted for the evidence required in proof of the facts pleaded, subject however to an admission made by the other party. Unless through skilful cross-examination discrediting the case of the other party, he is still bound to lead evidence in support of his own pleading. Where evidence is adduced to buttress a pleading, then it is good news for the pleader, as it strengthens his case. However, evidence adduced in support of facts not pleaded goes to no issue and should therefore be disregarded ORIZU V. ONYAEGBUNAM 1978.5 S.C. 21 at 820. In ACB V. GWAGWALADA 1994. 5 NWLR Part 342 page 25 at 27 it was held that before considering admissibility of any evidence or document in support of a party’s case it must be shown that the evidence sought to be led is relevant. Even if the evidence is admissible and it is not relevant, the admission of such evidence does not advance the case of the party.

— A. Jauro, JCA. Chevron v. Aderibigbe (2011) – CA/L/76/04

Was this dictum helpful?

FACTS / AVERMENTS PLEADED BUT NOT CONTROVERTED ARE DEEMED ADMITTED

It is a general principle of law that facts pleaded, or averments deposed to in an affidavit, if not specifically challenged or controverted, are deemed admitted and require no further proof, except where the facts are obviously false to the knowledge of the court. There is a plethora of authorities on this, such as, The Honda Place Ltd. Vs Globe Motor Holdings Nig. Ltd. (supra), Ajomale Vs Yaduat (No.2) (supra); Ogunleye Vs Oni (1990) 4 SC 130; CBN Vs Interstella Communications Ltd. (2017) LPELR 43940 (SC) @ 620; Nishizawa Ltd Vs Jthwani (1984) 12 SC 234.

– O.K. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. Lagos State Govt. v. Abdul Kareem (2022) – SC.910/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

PLEADINGS ARE CLOSED WHEN PARTIES JOIN ISSUES – REPLY MAY BE UNNECESSARY

Pleadings are closed when parties join issues in a case. Where both the statement of claim and the statement of defence do not bring the parties to issue on all the claims, the plaintiff shall file a reply. However, where no counter-claim is filed, further pleadings by way of reply to a statement of defence is unnecessary if the sole purpose is to deny the averments in the statement of defence. SeeIshola v. S.G.B. (Nig.) Ltd. (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 488) 405 SC. In Egesumba v. Onuzuryike (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.791) 466 at 499 Ayoola JSC, expatiated thus “Where, of course, the plaintiff seeks to contradict the allegations in the statement of defence not merely by traverse but by raising issues of fact which would take the defendant by surprise, he should raise such issues by a reply. But, even then, the consequence of his not so raising it is not that he is taken to have admitted the truth of the allegations of fact in the statement of defence so as to free the defendant from the obligation to lead evidence in proof of what he alleges, but to deprive the plaintiff from adducing evidence of facts not pleaded or already raised by the pleadings as they stand. Tobi JSC at p. 519 of the report also clarified that:- “(iv) In order to allow a party to file a reply the trial Court must be satisfied that both the statement of claim and the statement of defence filed by the parties have not, when read together, sufficiently disclosed and fixed the real issues between the parties and that further pleadings in the reply to be filed will achieve the purpose of bringing the parties to an issue.”

— T. Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA. Alabi v Audu (2017) – CA/A/494/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT OF LAW MUST LIMIT ITSELF TO ISSUE RAISED IN PLEADINGS

Courts of law must, as a rule, limit themselves to the issues raised by the parties in their pleadings as to act otherwise might well result in the denial to one or the other of the parties of his constitutional right to fair hearing.

– Iguh, JSC. Clay v. Aina (1997)

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS

It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings: See Obimiami Brick and Stone (Nig.) v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.229) 260. The essence of pleadings is to compel the parties to define accurately and precisely the issues upon which the case between them is to be fought to avoid element of surprise by either party. It also guides the parties not to give evidence outside the facts pleaded as evidence on a fact not pleaded goes to no issue – see Onwuka v. Omogui (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.230) 393; Emegokwue v. Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC 113.

— Katsina-Alu JSC. Engineer Bayo Akinterinwa & Anor V. Cornelius Oladunjoye (SC.98/94, 7 April 2000)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.