Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

PARTY MUST TRAVERSE EACH ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

Dictum

The law is that each party must traverse specifically each allegation of fact which he does not intend to admit. The party pleading must make it clear how much of his opponent’s case he disputes. The law is notorious that a traverse must not be evasive, but must answer the point of substance. The basic rule of pleading is that a traverse whether by denial or refusal to admit, must not be evasive but must answer the point of substance. The pleader must deal specifically with every allegation of fact made by his opponent: he must either admit it frankly or deny it boldly. Any half-admission or half-denial is evasive.”

— O. Oyebiola, J. Yakubu v. FRCN (2016) – NIC/LA/673/2013

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

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?...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

DISTINCTION IN AVERMENTS IN AFFIDAVIT vs THAT IN PLEADINGS

MAGNUSSON VS. KOIKI (1993) 12 SCNJ 114 held 5, the Supreme Court said: “Averments of facts on pleadings must be distinguished from facts deposed to in affidavit in support of application before a court. Whereas the former, unless admitted, constitutes no evidence, the latter are by law, evidence upon which a Court of Law may,...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

EVIDENCE ON MATTER NOT PLEADED

It is settled that evidence led on any matter not pleaded goes to no issue and ought to be disregarded when giving judgment. – Kutigi JSC. Amadi v. Nwosu (1992) Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

GENERAL TRAVERSE OF FACTS

Anah v. Nnacho (1965) NMLR 28 at 31 the Supreme Court in considering a general traverse stated thus: “Now it seems clear that the cumulative effect of these two paragraphs is that the appellants joined issue with respondents in respect of all the lands described in the pink area of Exhibit 2. By common practice...

This content is for PAYMENT - 1-DAY and PAYMENT - 1-MONTH members only.
Login Join Now

THERE MUST BE A SPECIFIC DENIAL PLEADINGS BY THE OTHER PARTY

In the case of Messrs. Lewis & Peat (N.R.I.) Ltd. v. Akhimien ( 1976) 7 S.C. 157 at page 163-4 where he stated: “We must observe, however, that in order to raise an issue of fact in these circumstances there must be a proper traverse: and traverse must be made either by a denial or non-admission either expressly or by necessary implication. So that if a defendant refuses to admit a particular allegation in the statement of claim, he must state so specifically; and he does not do this satisfactorily by pleading thus: ‘defendant is trot in a position to admit or deny (the particular allegation on the statement of claim) and will at the trial put plaintiff to proof.” … We are, of course, not unmindful of the first paragraph of the statement of defence. Nowadays almost every statement of defence contains such a general denial. (See Warner v. Sampson (1959) 1 Q.B. 287 at 310-311. However, in respect of essential and material allegations such a general denial ought not be adopted; essential allegations should be specifically traversed. (See Wallersteins v. Moir (1974) 1 W.L.R. 991 at 1002 per Lord Denning, M.R.; also Bullen & Leake & Jacobs, Precedents of Pleadings 12th Edition 83).

Was this dictum helpful?

PLEADINGS SHOULD BE CONCISE PRESENTATION OF FACTS

Para. 12: “The court reiterates that the pleadings should be confined to a concise and precise presentation of facts and brief summary of evidence in support including references to documents. All arguments shall be reserved for the oral phase of the proceedings. Reference is hereby made to Articles 33 and 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.”

— Saidykhan v GAMBIA (2010) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/10

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.