ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE

Thus, where both parties have agreed on a fact in issue, no further proof of such fact was necessary as it ceases to be an issue between them:-See Chief Okparaeke of Ndrakaeme & Ors. V. Egbuonu & Ors. (1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 53. In Chief Nwizuk & Ors. v,. Eneyok & Ors. (1953) 14 W.A.C.A. 354, it was held that admissions under this section are not confined to written nor documentary admissions. They include oral admissions if made clearly in open court during the proceedings. Admissions may also be by implication where there is a failure positively to deny an allegation. In Hill V Hogg (1854) 4 Allen (New Brunswick) R 108 it was held that an admission and a confession to the commission may be given in evidence in proof of an imputation.

— Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Din v. African Newspapers (1990)

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMITTED NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

As in law what is admitted need no further proof Kamalu v. Umunna (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt.505) 321 at 326.

— O.O. Adekeye, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMISSION OF AVERMENTS

The law is that a plaintiff’s averment of facts must be met by the defendant frontally and categorically. Once a traverse is not met directly, the defendant is taken to have admitted it. See Owosho v. Adebowale v. Dada (1984) 7 SC pg.149. Such traverse to be valid must be related to the proceeding and subsequent paragraphs of the statement of defence.

– Ogunwumiju JCA. NBC v. Olarewaju (2006) – CA/IL/43/2004

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMISSION IS NOT IPSO FACTO TRUTH OF THE CASE

I may repeat that an admission does not necessarily mean proof of what is contained therein. An admission relied upon by any party is not ipso facto accepted to be the truth by the court once it is not in accordance with the truth of the case. It is the duty of the court to decide the case in accordance with the facts pleaded and proved to be true.

— Olatawura JSC. African Continental Bank Ltd. v. Alhaji Umaru Gwagwada (SC.26/1990, 29 APR 1994)

Was this dictum helpful?

WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE MAY NOT BE A GROUND FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION

Thus, where such evidence is by error or otherwise admitted, then it is the duly of the trial court to expunge it in giving its judgment. If it fails to do so, the appeal court will reject such evidence and consider the case in the light of the legally admitted evidence See Owoniyi v. Omotoso (1961) 2 SCNLR 57, (1961) All NLR 304; Alase v. Ilu (1964) 1 All NLR 390. In any event, it is trite that wrongful admission of inadmissible evidence is not of itself a ground for the reversal of any decision. Similarly, the wrongful exclusion of admissible evidence is not of itself a ground for the reversal of any decision. All these are however dependent on the view held by the appeal court on whether the evidence wrongly admitted or wrongly excluded would have the effect of changing the decision even if admitted or excluded.

— I.T. Muhammad JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

FACTS ADMITTED NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

It is trite that a crucial fact which is admitted does not require further proof as no person would admit a fact which could work against his interest unless it is true.

— J.I. Okoro, JSC. Universal Properties v. Pinnacle Comm. Bank, NJA, Opia, Heritage, Fatogun (SC.332/2008, Friday, April 08, 2022)

NO NEED TO ESTABLISH TRUTH OF FACT ALREADY ADMITTED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMITTED NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMISSION OF AVERMENTS

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMISSION IS NOT IPSO FACTO TRUTH OF THE CASE

Was this dictum helpful?

WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE MAY NOT BE A GROUND FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION

Was this dictum helpful?

FACTS ADMITTED NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

Was this dictum helpful?