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!

AFFIDAVIT NOT DENIED OR POSITIVELY CONTROVERTED IS DEEMED ADMITTED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The law is now quite clear on the fact that, an affidavit not denied or positively controverted, is deemed to be admitted by the adverse party. And to deny an affidavit, the adverse party does not have to speak in tongues or in subterfuge, as he is required to deny the averment frontally and positively, leaving the court or any reader of his denial not in doubt of his adverse position to the one advanced or canvassed in the supporting affidavit. See the case of Hon. Maryati Audu Dogan & Ors. vs. A.G. Taraba State, an unreported decision of this court in CA/J/243/2010, delivered on 25/5/2011, pages 35 – 36 thereof. It is settled law that an affidavit evidence constitutes evidence and any deposition not challenged is deemed admitted. H.S. Engineering Ltd. vs. A.S. Yakubu Ltd. (2002) 175 LRCN 134, ratio 2, Ajomale vs. Yaduat (1991) 5 SCNJ 178, Nzeribe vs. Dave Engineering Co. Ltd. (1994) 2 SCNJ 161; Oyewole vs. Akande (2009) All FWLR (Pt.491) 813.

— I.G. Mbaba, JCA. Ogunleye v. Aina (2012) – CA/IL/22/2011

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

affidavit

NO LAW PRESENTLY PROHIBITS A COUNSEL FROM DEPOSING TO AN AFFIDAVIT

The preliminary point raised by the Petitioner/Respondent that the motion of the 3 rd Respondent be dismissed, because the affidavit in support is sworn to by a legal practitioner in the law firm of counsel representing the 3 rd Respondent, is not sustainable. Our simple answer to this, is that there is no law that prohibits a counsel from deposing to an affidavit, if the counsel is conversant with the facts, or where the facts are within his personal knowledge. See the case of SODIPO VS LEMMINKAINEM (1986) 1 NWLR (PART 15) 220. In view of this, the motion of the 3 rd Respondent cannot be dismissed for the aforesaid reason.

— A. Osadebay, J. APC v INEC & Ors. (EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023, 20th Day of September, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

ANY DEPOSITION IN AFFIDAVIT UNCHALLENGED IS DEEMED ADMITTED

IN H.S. ENGINEERING LTD VS. AS. YAKUBU LTD (2009) 175 LRCN 134, ratio 2, it was held – ‘It is now settled law that an affidavit evidence constitutes evidence and any deposition therein not challenged is deemed admitted.’ See also the unreported decision of this court in CA/IL/83/2010 (Adebiyi v. Umar), delivered on 31/1/2012, page 11.

Was this dictum helpful?

FACTS NECESSARY FOR GRANTING PRAYERS SHOULD BE STATED IN AFFIDAVIT

An application or motion on the other hand is usually supported by an affidavit or affidavits with or without exhibits, depending on the nature of the application. It is necessary for an applicant to state fully in an affidavit or affidavit, the facts he intends to rely upon in seeking the prayers or order contained in the motion paper because except with the leave of court, he will not be heard in respect of facts not contained in the affidavit.

– Kutigi JSC. Magnusson v. Koiki (1993) – SC.119/1991

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT WHICH CONTAINS ARGUMENT WILL BE STRUCK OUT

In this case, the first part of the said paragraph 7c [of Applicants’ affidavit], reads as follows – “The condemnation of the Appellant’s Counsel as unprofessional, disrespectful, dishonest, discourteous, without hearing him is contrary to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and thus null and void. See the Supreme Court case of BELLO V. INEC & ANOR. (2010) LPELR-767 (SC), page 78, paras. D-F, the Court held that ‘A court has inherent power to set aside its judgment or order where it has become so obvious that it was fundamentally defective or given without jurisdiction. In such a case, the Judgment or Order given becomes null and void, thus liable to be set aside’.
Is this paragraph 7c in the Applicants’ Affidavit in the form of evidence? Obviously not; it is a legal argument or conclusion, which offends against Section 115 (2) of the Evidence Act 201, and it is, therefore, struck out.

— A.A. Augie, JCA. Elias v Ecobank (2016) – CA/L/873/2013

Was this dictum helpful?

AN AFFIDAVIT MUST BE CONFINED TO FACTS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT

An affidavit meant for use in court stands as evidence and must as near as possible conform to oral evidence admissible in court. Sections 86 and 87 of the Evidence Act provide as follows:- “86. Every affidavit used in the court shall contain only a statement of facts and circumstances to which the witness deposes, either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true. 87. An affidavit shall not contain extraneous matter, by way of objection, or prayer, or legal argument or conclusion.” … Looking at the counter-affidavit, paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 are fit for Counsel to urge upon the court by way of submission and, if there are facts and circumstances presented in support, the court may consider the submission attractive enough to dissuade it from granting the bail sought. Paragraph 18 contains a conclusion which ought to be left to the court to reach. Therefore paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 18 are extraneous being in contravention of Section 87 of the Evidence Act. They ought to have been struck out. I accordingly strike them out. As for the further counter-affidavit, paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 are also extraneous because they are fit for argument of Counsel to persuade the court. I strike them out as well.

— Uwaifo, JSC. Bamaiyi v State (SC 292/2000, Supreme Court, 6th April 2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT FOR INTERLOCUTORY MOTION IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF MAIN SUIT

The long and short of it is that the defendant’s submission that the Court should consider its counter-affidavit to the claimants’ motion for interlocutory orders, having been moved and ruled on, cannot be considered as the defence of the defendant to the substantive suit. The counteraffidavit had served its purpose i.e. as the defence to the motion for interlocutory orders. It is not the defence of the defendant to the substantive suit … All this said, the oral application to use the defendant’s counter-affidavit to the motion of interlocutory orders in this judgment is hereby refused. I so rule.

— B.B. Kanyip, J. FG v. ASUU (2023) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.