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!

AFFIDAVITS SHOULD NOT CONTAIN PRAYERS, LEGAL ARGUMENTS, AND CONCLUSIONS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

I think the legal position is clear that in any affidavit used in the court, the law requires, as provided in Sections 86 and 87 of the Evidence Act, that it shall contain only a statement of facts and circumstances derived from the personal knowledge of the deponent or from information which he believes to be true, and shall not contain extraneous matter by way of objection, or prayer, or legal argument or conclusion. The problem is sometimes how to discern any particular extraneous matter. The test for doing this, in my view, is to examine each of the paragraphs deposed to in the affidavit to ascertain whether it is fit only as a submission which Counsel ought to urge upon the court. If it is, then it is likely to be either an objection or legal argument which ought to be pressed in oral argument; or it may be conclusion upon an issue which ought to be left to the discretion of the court either to make a finding or to reach a decision upon through its process of reasoning. But if it is in the form of evidence which a witness may be entitled to place before the court in his testimony on oath and is legally receivable to prove or disprove some fact in dispute, then it qualifies as a statement of facts and circumstances which may be deposed to in an affidavit. It therefore means that prayers, objections and legal arguments are matters that may be pressed by Counsel in court and are not fit for a witness either in oral testimony or in affidavit evidence; while conclusions should not be drawn by witnesses but left for the court to reach.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

affidavit

CONCLUSION DRAWN IN AFFIDAVIT NEED NOT BE LEGAL CONCLUSION FOR STRIKING OUT

Besides, I do not think that view has any merit either by way of the interpretation of the said Section 87 of the Evidence Act or by looking broadly at the word “conclusion” which covers any conclusion based on fact or law as a result of a process of reasoning. It is the same process by which opinion or deduction is arrived at or inference drawn. Therefore to say that the conclusion meant under Section 87 is legal conclusion is restrictive and misleading.

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

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?

MEANING OF AFFIDAVIT

Now, affidavit is simply a declaration on oath, a formal sworn statement of facts signed by the deponent and witnessed as to the veracity of the deposition’s signature by the taker of the oath such as the commissioner for oaths, notary public or even a magistrate. Thus, Affidavit evidence is a statement of fact which the deponent swears to be true to the best of his knowledge, information or belief. See Chief Chukwumeka Odumegu Ojukwu vs Miss Stella Onyeador (1991) 7 NWLR (pt 203) 286 at 317. A deposition literally means a formal, usually a written statement to be used in a law suit as evidence.

— A.A. Wambai, JCA. Aliyu v. Bulaki (2019) – CA/S/36/2018

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT NOT CHALLENGED IS DEEMED ADMITTED

In Badejo V. Fed. Min. of Education (supra) at page 15; it was held by the Supreme Court that:- “where an affidavit is filed deposing to certain facts and the other party does not file a counter affidavit or reply to a counter affidavit, the facts deposed to in the affidavit would be deemed unchallenged and undisputed…they are therefore admitted.”

Was this dictum helpful?

MERE GENERAL TRAVERSE IN AFFIDAVIT IS NOT ENOUGH

ARUWA v. ABDULKADIR (2002) FWLR 677 ratio 3, it was held, concerning the defendant’s affidavit, thus: “… The defendants affidavit must condescend upon particulars and should as far as possible specifically deal with the plaintiff’s claim and the affidavit in support thereof and state clearly and concisely what the defence is and what facts are relied upon to support it. The same affidavit defence should also state whether the defence relates to the whole or part of the claim, and in the latter case, it should specify that part of the claim. A mere general statement or denial, that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff is not enough to constitute a defence, unless the grounds on which the defendant relies as showing that he is not indebted are stated in the affidavit.”

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE WILL BE ALLOWED FOR IRRECONCILABLE AFFIDAVITS

It is in exceptional cases for example where there are irreconcilable affidavits from both sides, that oral evidence will be allowed to be led in support of interlocutory application (see Falobi v. Falobi (1976) 9-10 S.C. 15, Eboh & Ors. v. Oki & Ors. (1974) 1 SC. 179), Uku & Ors. v. Okumagba & Ors. (1974) 3 SC. 35) unlike pleadings which will have to be supported by evidence at the trial as stated earlier.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.