Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

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

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

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?

SHARE ON

WHERE FACTS ARE ADMITTED OR NOT TRAVERSED, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE

“11. At law where facts are admitted or not traversed in the pleadings, a party is not obliged to lead any further evidence. The documents on which the plaintiff relied on in this proceeding were all admitted by the defendant who also relied on all those documents as well as her own. In such an instance, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to provide oral evidence to prove these facts as they are admitted by the defendant. Thus, defendant’s contention that plaintiff did not provide evidence to substantiate his claims and should be deemed to have waived them is not acceptable in law and so same is respectfully rejected by the Court.”

— Ayika v Liberia (2012) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/09/12

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE FACT NOT COUNTERED IN LAW, IT IS DEEMED ADMITTED

In the two separate counter-affidavits filed by the appellant in response to the affidavits in support of the Notices of intention to rely upon Preliminary Objection by the respondents there is no averments which countered the facts deposed to by the respondents in their respective affidavits in support as summarised above. The law is well settled that any fact which has not been categorically countered or denied by a party, that fact is deemed admitted in law by the other party. See: Nzeribe v. Dave Eng, Co. Ltd (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt.361) 124; Omoregbe v. Lawani (1980) 3-4 SC 108. See also section 75 of the Evidence Act, LFN, Cap.112, 1990.

— I.T. Muhammad, JSC. EFET v INEC (SC.207/2009, 28 January 2011)

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

NO NEED TO ESTABLISH TRUTH OF FACT ALREADY ADMITTED

There is no need to establish the truth of a fact already admitted. See Ajikawo v. Ansaido (Nig) Ltd (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 359.

— N.S. Ngwuta, JSC. Henry Nwokearu V. The State (SC.227/2011, 24 MAY 2013)

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?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.