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!

WHERE FACTS ARE ADMITTED OR NOT TRAVERSED, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

“11. At law where facts are admitted or not traversed in the pleadings, a party is not obliged to lead any further evidence. The documents on which the plaintiff relied on in this proceeding were all admitted by the defendant who also relied on all those documents as well as her own. In such an instance, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to provide oral evidence to prove these facts as they are admitted by the defendant. Thus, defendant’s contention that plaintiff did not provide evidence to substantiate his claims and should be deemed to have waived them is not acceptable in law and so same is respectfully rejected by the Court.”

— Ayika v Liberia (2012) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/09/12

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

admission

PRE-REQUISITE FOR AN ADMISSION TO HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE

In law it is true, and as was ably submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant, that for an admission to have probative value it must clearly, precisely and unequivocally express the admitting mind of the person. Thus, an alleged admission lacking in exactness and firmness of purpose would not qualify as an admission....

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

FACTS ADMITTED NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

It is trite that a crucial fact which is admitted does not require further proof as no person would admit a fact which could work against his interest unless it is true. — J.I. Okoro, JSC. Universal Properties v. Pinnacle Comm. Bank, NJA, Opia, Heritage, Fatogun (SC.332/2008, Friday, April 08, 2022) Was this dictum helpful?...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

ADMISSION OF AVERMENTS

The law is that a plaintiff’s averment of facts must be met by the defendant frontally and categorically. Once a traverse is not met directly, the defendant is taken to have admitted it. See Owosho v. Adebowale v. Dada (1984) 7 SC pg.149. Such traverse to be valid must be related to the proceeding and...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

COURT CAN SUO MOTO EXPUNGE EARLIER ADMITTED EVIDENCE IF ERROR IN ADMISSION IS DISCOVERED LATER

On the sub issue as to whether the court has the power to expunge from its record evidence or documents earlier admitted without objection by counsel, it is settled law that the courts can do that and has been doing that over the years; see NIPC Ltd. v. Thompson Organization Ltd. (1966) 1 NMLR 99...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

ADMITTED NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

As in law what is admitted need no further proof Kamalu v. Umunna (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt.505) 321 at 326. — O.O. Adekeye, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000 Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

NO NEED TO ESTABLISH TRUTH OF FACT ALREADY ADMITTED

There is no need to establish the truth of a fact already admitted. See Ajikawo v. Ansaido (Nig) Ltd (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 359. — N.S. Ngwuta, JSC. Henry Nwokearu V. The State (SC.227/2011, 24 MAY 2013) Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

No more related dictum to show.