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!

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

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

affidavit

AFFIDAVIT NOT DENIED OR POSITIVELY CONTROVERTED IS DEEMED ADMITTED

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?

WHERE CONFLICT IN BOTH AFFIDAVITS, COURT WILL CALL FOR ORAL EVIDENCE

On the question of conflict of affidavit evidence placed before the lower court which appellant’s learned Counsel had submitted should be resolved by oral evidence in order to act on such evidence, our case law is replete with authorities that where a matter is being tried on affidavit evidence and the court is confronted with conflicting or contradictory evidence relied on by the parties on a material issue before the court; it is the law that the court cannot resolve such conflict by evaluating the conflicting evidence but is obliged to call for oral evidence in order to achieve resolution of the conflict. (See Falobi v Falobi (1976) 9 & 10 SC 1 and Akinsete v Akidutire (1966) All NLR 137).

— Achike JSC. Momah v VAB Petro (2000) – SC. 183/1995

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?

AFFIDAVIT SHOWING CAUSE TO DEFEND MUST DISCLOSE A DEFENCE

Furthermore, an affidavit showing cause why a defendant should be granted leave to defend an action must disclose a defence on the merit setting out the details and particulars of the defence. The popular expression is that the affidavit must “condescend upon particulars.” The affidavit showing cause must disclose facts which will at least throw some doubt on the plaintiff’s case. See U.B.A. Plc Vs Jargaba (Supra); Macaulay Vs NAL Merchant Bank Ltd (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 144) 283: Nishizawa Ltd Vs Jethwani (1984) 12 SC 234.

— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun JSC. B.O. Lewis v. United Bank for Africa Plc. (SC.143/2006, 14 January 2016)

Was this dictum helpful?

DISTINCTION BETWEEN WITNESS STATEMENT ON OATH & AFFIDAVIT

In Okpa v. Irek & Anor. [2012] LPELR-8033 (CA) held thus: This court has consistently held that a witness statement on oath is different from affidavit evidence. An affidavit is a statement of fact which the maker or deponent swears to be true to the best of his knowledge. It is a court Process in writing deposing to facts within the knowledge of the deponent. It is documentary evidence which the court can admit in the absence of any unchallenged evidence. Akpokeniovo v. Agas [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt. 881) 394. On the contrary a witness statement is not evidence. It only becomes evidence after the witness is sworn in court and adopts his witness statement. At this stage at best it becomes evidence in chief. It is thereafter subjected to cross examination after which it becomes evidence to be used by the Court. If the opponent fails to cross examine the witness, it is taken as the true situation of facts contained therein.

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT PARAGRAPHS THAT OFFEND SECTION 115 EVIDENCE ACT 2011 WILL BE STRUCK OUT

The stipulations of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is a reproduction of the provisions of Sections 86, 88 and 89 of the Evidence Act, 1990. It is rudimentary law that any paragraph of an affidavit which offends against the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act may be struck out, but if it is not struck out, no weight should be attached to it: JOSIEN HOLDINGS LTD vs. LORNAMEAD LTD (supra), FMG vs. SANI (NO. 2) (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 624 and EDU vs. COMM. FOR AGRIC. (2000) 12 NWLR (PT 681) 318. Indeed, it seems to be settled law that any paragraph of an affidavit which offends Section 115 of the Evidence Act ought not to be acted upon. It is liable to be discountenanced and struck out. See OSIAN vs. FLOUR MILLS (1968) 2 ALL NLR 13, EURO BATI CONCEPT S.A. vs. TROPICAL INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD (2001) 18 NWLR (PT 744) 165 and A-G ADAMAWA vs. A-G (FED) (2005) 18 NWLR (PT 958) 581 at 625 and 657-658.

— U.A. Ogakwu, JCA. Lagos State v NDIC (CA/L/124/2003(R), Court of Appeal, June 2nd 2020)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.