Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

FAILURE TO FILE A STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

Dictum

Aderonpe v. Eleran (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1661) 141 at 170, E: ‘At the trial court, the 1st respondent neither entered appearance nor did she file a statement of defence. The law is settled that where the evidence given by a party to any proceeding was not challenged by the adverse party who had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the court seized of the case to acton such unchallenged evidence before it. See Isaac Omoregbe v. Daniel Lawani(1980) 3 – 4 SC 108 at 117; Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 35; Nigerian Maritime Services Ltd. v. Alhaji Bello Afolabi (1978) 2 SC 79 at 81; Abel Boshali v. Allied Commercial Exporters Ltd. (1961) All NLR 917; (1961) SCNLR 322.’

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

ISSUES ARE IMPLIEDLY JOINED ON STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

The facts constituting the defence of laches and acquiescence can be gleaned from paragraphs 13, 14, 19, 24, 29, 31, 32, 42 and 48 of the Statement of defence of the defendant/appellant. The contention of the appellant is that the weighty averments made in these paragraphs were not in any way controverted by the plaintiff/respondent....

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

WHAT IS A NEW ISSUE INTRODUCED IN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

Indeed, in succinctly explaining the new issue which should attract a reply, the Supreme Court had held in EGESIMBA v ONUZURIKI (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 791) 466 at 518, thus: “A new issue to attract a reply must in law be really new in the sense of being brand and fresh. The issue must be...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

NEW FACTS SHOULD NOT BE INTRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF REPLY BY THE PETITIONER

By the provision of paragraph 16(1) (a) above reproduced, a petitioner is permitted to file a reply if the Respondent to the petition in his reply raises new issues of fact in defence of his case which the petition has not dealt with, but in doing so, the Petitioners’ reply shall not bring in new facts, grounds or prayer which tend to amend or add to the contents of the petition. See MADUABUM V NWOSU (SUPRA).

— K.M. Akano, J. Edeoga v Mbah (2023) – EPT/EN/GOV/01/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

A REPLY TO STATEMENT OF DEFENCE MAY NOT BE NEEDED

In fact, the settled position of the law is that except in some well-defined situations, a Reply to Statement of defence is not even permitted where no counterclaim is served. This is so because there is in law an implied joinder of issues on any fact raised in the statement of defence and any averment...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here