I may repeat that an admission does not necessarily mean proof of what is contained therein. An admission relied upon by any party is not ipso facto accepted to be the truth by the court once it is not in accordance with the truth of the case. It is the duty of the court to decide the case in accordance with the facts pleaded and proved to be true.
— Olatawura JSC. African Continental Bank Ltd. v. Alhaji Umaru Gwagwada (SC.26/1990, 29 APR 1994)
SHARE ON
In the two separate counter-affidavits filed by the appellant in response to the affidavits in support of the Notices of intention to rely upon Preliminary Objection by the respondents there is no averments which countered the facts deposed to by the respondents in their respective affidavits in support as summarised above. The law is well settled that any fact which has not been categorically countered or denied by a party, that fact is deemed admitted in law by the other party. See: Nzeribe v. Dave Eng, Co. Ltd (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt.361) 124; Omoregbe v. Lawani (1980) 3-4 SC 108. See also section 75 of the Evidence Act, LFN, Cap.112, 1990.
— I.T. Muhammad, JSC. EFET v INEC (SC.207/2009, 28 January 2011)
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)
Now an admission is a statement, oral or written (expressed or implied) which is made by a party to civil proceedings and which statement is adverse to his case. It is admissible as evidence against the maker as the truth of the fact asserted in the statement.
– Kawu, JSC. Ogunnaike v. Ojayemi (1987)
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 subsequent paragraphs of the statement of defence.
– Ogunwumiju JCA. NBC v. Olarewaju (2006) – CA/IL/43/2004
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 at 104 where LEWIS, JSC stated the law as follows:- “It is of course the duty of counsel to object to admissible evidence and the duty of trial court any way to refuse to admit inadmissible evidence, but if notwithstanding this evidence is still through oversight or otherwise admitted then it is the duty of the court to when it comes to give judgment to treat the inadmissible evidence as if it had never been admitted”.
— Onnoghen, JSC. Kubor v. Dickson (2012) – SC.369/2012
Thus, where both parties have agreed on a fact in issue, no further proof of such fact was necessary as it ceases to be an issue between them:-See Chief Okparaeke of Ndrakaeme & Ors. V. Egbuonu & Ors. (1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 53. In Chief Nwizuk & Ors. v,. Eneyok & Ors. (1953) 14 W.A.C.A. 354, it was held that admissions under this section are not confined to written nor documentary admissions. They include oral admissions if made clearly in open court during the proceedings. Admissions may also be by implication where there is a failure positively to deny an allegation. In Hill V Hogg (1854) 4 Allen (New Brunswick) R 108 it was held that an admission and a confession to the commission may be given in evidence in proof of an imputation.
— Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Din v. African Newspapers (1990)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry