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!

FAILURE OF COURT TO CONSIDER AFFIDAVIT IS A BREACH OF FAIR HEARING

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

In Order 6 Rules (2) and (4) of the Rules of this court, in an application for leave to appeal or for enlargement of time within which to seek leave to appeal, a respondent may, if he so desires, file in reply a counter affidavit. It follows that in considering the application for leave to appeal, the court has a duty to also consider the counter affidavit of the Respondent before arriving at a decision. Failure to consider the counter affidavit, as was done in this case is not only an irregularity but a clear denial of fair hearing to the Respondent/Applicant herein.

— J.I. Okoro JSC. Citec v. Francis (SC.116/2011, 21 February 2014)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

affidavit

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?

WEIGHT OF AN AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE OF TITLE TO LAND

I turn to Exhibit 2. It is an affidavit deposing to title. An affidavit evidence of title to land is not sacrosanct, evidential value wise. Such deposition can only be admissible if it is not challenged by the adverse party. If the deposition is challenged, then the parties have joined issues and the onus is on the deponent or any other witness as the case may be, to prove by oral evidence the veracity or authenticity of the deposition. Exhibit 2 is yet another evidence of traditional history which unfortunately the learned trial Judge, from the totality of the oral evidences before him, rejected. I therefore hold that Exhibit 2 does not have any probative value of any record found therein.

— Tobi, JCA. Abraham v Olorunfunmi (1990) – CA/L/83/89

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?

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?

FAILURE TO FILE A FURTHER AFFIDAVIT IS ADMISSION OF THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I will therefore, pause here to state that it is now settled that failure to swear to a further-affidavit where there is a counter-affidavit which is unchallenged, it is deemed that the counter-affidavit, is admitted as being correct. In other words, where there is an unchallenged counter-affidavit evidence, the court is at liberty, to accept it as true and correct. See the cases of Jumbo Nwanganga & 5 ors. v. Military Governor of Imo State & 2 ors. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.59) 182 @ 193 C.A. and Attorney-General orPlateau State v. Attorney-General of Nassarawa State (2005) 4 SCNJ 120 @ 175; (2005) 4 S.C. 55.

— F. Ogbuagu JSC. Stephens Eng. Ltd. v. S.A. Yakubu (2009) – SC.153/2002

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?

No more related dictum to show.