A motion for a stay of execution is usually accompanied by an affidavit deposing to facts (not law, not speculation) which will persuade and incline the court to grant a stay … Paragraphs 14, 15 and 17 reproduced above offend all known rules relating to affidavits. One of those rules is that “an affidavit shall not contain extraneous matter, by way of objection, or prayer, or legal argument or conclusion”.
– Oputa, JSC. Military Governor v. Ojukwu (1986) – SC.241/1985
SHARE ON
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)
Averments of facts in pleadings must however be distinguished from facts deposed to in an affidavit in support of an application before a court. Whereas the former, unless admitted, constitute no evidence, the latter are by law evidence upon which a court of law may in appropriate cases act. The Court of Appeal, if I may say with the utmost respect, appeared to be under the erroneous impression that an averment in pleadings is synonymous with a deposition in an affidavit in support of an application. This is clearly not the case. So too, an address of Counsel in moving an application is not the evidence in support of such an application. The evidence is the deposition contained in the affidavit in support thereof.
— Iguh JSC. Magnusson v. Koiki (1993) – SC.119/1991
In the case in hand, the contradictions or conflicts in affidavit evidence did not relate to the affidavit evidence filed by the appellant, on the one hand, and that filed by the respondent, on the other; rather, the contradiction arose only in respect of the appellant’s averments in his numerous affidavits. Therefore, the age-long principle of fielding witnesses to furnish oral evidence for the resolution of the contradictions between the two separate sets of evidence by the parties did not arise. Rather, it was self-evident from the judgment of the lower court that the contradictions alluded to were those that arose from the inconsistencies in the depositions in the appellant’s own affidavits. Clearly, where the appellant’s case is plagued by inconsistencies or contradictions, there is no obligation, in such circumstances, on the court seized of the matter to arrange for oral evidence to be called for the purposes of making or resolving the contradictions in the appellant’s case. The law frowns on a party who approbates in one breath and reprobates in another. But having said that, I must hurry to state that the onus is undoubtedly on the appellant confronted with its self-created contradictions to fully and properly explain away the contradictions to the satisfaction of the court. Failure to do so is bound to leave an indelible dent on the appellant’s case. It is not open to the court to enter into the arena of judicial conflict between the parties in order to resolve the contradictions within the appellant’s own affidavit evidence.
— Achike JSC. Momah v VAB Petro (2000) – SC. 183/1995
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
It is settled law that what pleadings is to a party is what an affidavit is to a party in an interlocutory application or even in certain substantive or originating process and any document attached to an affidavit is part of the affidavit and must be considered together. See UBN PLC v. ASTRA BUILDER (W.A) Ltd (2010) LPELR-3383(SC). The affidavit evidence of the Appellant with the bundle of extradition documents were copious enough to make a prima facie case.
— H.M. Ogunwumiju JSC. A.G of The Federation v. Anuebunwa (SC.CV/118/2021)
These averments were not challenged or denied by the Appellant. No further affidavit was filed by the Appellant to deny that it ever agreed to submit to the Jurisdiction of the English Court. The Appellant did not challenge the Judgment by way of appeal nor did it deny the averments in the Counter Affidavits. I therefore agree with the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent that where facts in an affidavit are not challenged, they are deemed admitted.
— J.O. Bada, JCA. Conoil v Vitol (2011) – CA/A/213/2010
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry