Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

COURT CAN SUO MOTO EXPUNGE EARLIER ADMITTED EVIDENCE IF ERROR IN ADMISSION IS DISCOVERED LATER

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

On the sub issue as to whether the court has the power to expunge from its record evidence or documents earlier admitted without objection by counsel, it is settled law that the courts can do that and has been doing that over the years; see NIPC Ltd. v. Thompson Organization Ltd. (1966) 1 NMLR 99 at 104 where LEWIS, JSC stated the law as follows:- “It is of course the duty of counsel to object to admissible evidence and the duty of trial court any way to refuse to admit inadmissible evidence, but if notwithstanding this evidence is still through oversight or otherwise admitted then it is the duty of the court to when it comes to give judgment to treat the inadmissible evidence as if it had never been admitted”.

— Onnoghen, JSC. Kubor v. Dickson (2012) – SC.369/2012

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

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?

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?

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?

PRE-REQUISITE FOR AN ADMISSION TO HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE

In law it is true, and as was ably submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant, that for an admission to have probative value it must clearly, precisely and unequivocally express the admitting mind of the person. Thus, an alleged admission lacking in exactness and firmness of purpose would not qualify as an admission. An admission must therefore, be direct and positive to be given the requisite probative weight in the ascription of probative value by the Court.

– PER B. A. GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. ZENITH BANK PLC v. WAILI (2022) – CA/A/964/2020

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 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?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 102 | UO – 0 | GO – 97 | BO – 5

External link(s)

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