It is well settled that every pleading must state facts and not law. A party is not expected to plead conclusions of law or mixed fact and law. However, conclusions of law can be drawn from material facts pleaded. It is also unnecessary to set out in a pleading content of a public statute.
– Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Finnih v. Imade (1992)
SHARE ON
In the case of Osondu Co Ltd. and Anor v. Akhigbe (1999) LPELR – 1433 (SC), the Supreme Court per Uwaifo, JSC, held as follows: “It must be realized that pleadings is a statement of candour as to what a party to a case relies on to prove or defend a cause. It ought to be made as clear as it possibly can, not evasive or misleading or ambiguous. Each party must endeavor to place and must be presumed to have placed, all necessary pleadable acts on record the best way it can in order to achieve the best of its case. It must put the other party and the Court on a firm understanding of what the issues joined or denied, or issues admitted or not admitted. Pleadings are the guiding light by which all concerned trace the path to the justice of a case. That path should not be hampered by and littered with stumbling blocks of uncertainties, misrepresentations and ambushes embedded in the averments. That will be an effort to spring surprises and will not be proper pleadings. As was said by Phillimore J., in The Why Not (1888) LR 2A and E. 265 and quoted with approval in Enwezor v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1976) 3 SC 45 at 56 Per Madarikan, JSC, pleadings “…are not to be considered as constituting a game of skill between the advocates. They ought to be so framed as not only to assist the party in the statement of his case but the Court in its investigation of the truth between the litigants.”
Both courts must be fully guided by the pleadings, which in this case are the petition and the replies. If a witness gives oral evidence on what is not pleaded in either the petition or the reply, the evidence will be of no probative value based on the principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings. If evidence is not led on a fact pleaded in either the petition or the reply the fact will be deemed to have been abandoned unless the fact was admitted by the adverse party. This is because pleadings have no mouth to talk and need human being with mouth and sense to articulate them in court. This principle of law will not apply where the particular pleading is admitted.
— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008
While I come to the conclusion that the appellants did not plead co-ownership, I should not be taken as making the point that they should have included in their pleadings, the legal word of co-ownership or its synonym joint-ownership. That is not what I mean. As a matter of law, a party cannot plead law in his pleadings. Although there are exceptions here and there to this general principle of law, particularly as it relates to the plea of some specific defences to certain actions, the matter before me, does not extend to that. All that the appellants were expected to do was to plead enough facts upon which the law of co-ownership can stand and keep its shoulders high, awaiting the lawyer to replenish it with either statutory authorities or decided case. But that was not done here, and the trial Judge, could not have supplied it. .
— Tobi, JCA. Abraham v Olorunfunmi (1990) – CA/L/83/89
It is still the law that where a defendant fails to deny specifically an allegation of fact in the Statement of Claim and a denial cannot be reasonably inferred from the defendant’s pleadings that fact will be taken as admitted and therefore regarded as established at the hearing without further proof.
– Onnoghen JCA. Union Bank v. Akinrinmade (1999)
Crime as an offence punishable by law must be specifically pleaded and proved. – Niki Tobi JSC. Okonkwo v. Cooperative Bank (2003)
It is a general principle of law that facts pleaded, or averments deposed to in an affidavit, if not specifically challenged or controverted, are deemed admitted and require no further proof, except where the facts are obviously false to the knowledge of the court. There is a plethora of authorities on this, such as, The Honda Place Ltd. Vs Globe Motor Holdings Nig. Ltd. (supra), Ajomale Vs Yaduat (No.2) (supra); Ogunleye Vs Oni (1990) 4 SC 130; CBN Vs Interstella Communications Ltd. (2017) LPELR 43940 (SC) @ 620; Nishizawa Ltd Vs Jthwani (1984) 12 SC 234.
– O.K. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. Lagos State Govt. v. Abdul Kareem (2022) – SC.910/2016
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry