It is very important to note that it is settled law that in an action based on pleadings issues are joined by the parties in their pleadings. It is also settled law that evidence on facts not pleaded ground to no issue. The existence or non-existence of fact is said to be in issue if the existence or non-existence of that fact is asserted by a party in his pleading and denied by the other party specifically, positively, and unequivocally.
– Onnoghen JSC. Dalek v. OMPADEC (2007)
SHARE ON
A general traverse is not an effective denial of essential or material averments in the opposing party’s pleading. – Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C. Union Bank v. Chimaeze (2014)
It is settled that evidence led on any matter not pleaded goes to no issue and ought to be disregarded when giving judgment. – Kutigi JSC. Amadi v. Nwosu (1992)
In law, an issue of fact on which the parties are ad idem or on which the adverse party did not effectively traverse are deemed to have been admitted and would thus require no further proof as they are taken as having been duly established. A general traverse or averment that a party is not in position to either admit or deny an allegation made by the other party does not amount to effective denial as to put such a fact in issue to be proved by the party so alleging. See paragraph 34 of the Statement of claim of the 1st 4th Respondents. See also paragraph 3 of the Statement of defence of the Appellant.
— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)
It is settled principle of law that when a Defendant files an application (such as the one that has given rise to this appeal) to strike out or dismiss an action on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, he is, for the purpose of the application, taken to have admitted the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim. And in the determination of the application, the Court is bound to restrict itself to the Statement of Claim and to proceed on the assumption that the facts therein have been although the facts in the Statement of Claim are admitted, the Plaintiff has not, on the face of such facts, made out a case to warrant a trial or that he has, in law, a complete answer to the Plaintiffs case. See F.C.D.A. v NAIBI (1990) 3 N.W.L.R. (Part 138) 270 at 281; IMANA v ROBINSON (1979) 3-4 SC 1 at 9-10; U.D.C. v LADIPO (1971) 1 ALL N.L.R. 102; FADARE v A.G. OYO STATE (1982) 4 SC 1; TANDON v CFAO of ACCRA 10 WACA 186; AKANBI v ALAO (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Part 108) 118 at 140 and 153; EGBE v ADEFARASIN (1985) 1NWLR (Part 3) 549 at 556.
— F.F. Tabai JSC. Stephens Eng. Ltd. v. S.A. Yakubu (2009) – SC.153/2002
There is no gainsaying the settled principle of law to the effect that the Court is bound to determine the case before it, as made out by the pleadings of the parties, particularly the Claimant’s or Plaintiff’s cause of action.
– Tukur JCA. Odulate v. FBN (2019)
A legal battle does not permit of surprises. A legal battle is very much like a boxing match or a tennis match where the opponent is known and the instruments of battle i.e., boxing gloves or tennis racquets and ball, as the case may be, are in plain view for all to see. No surprises are intended. In a Military battle however, surprise is fair game. The: enemy is not to know his opponents weapons or battle strategy. The enemy can surreptitiously plant bombs, land mines, etc. An ambush is a legitimate battle strategy. What the Appellant did by relying on the Chinese regulation without first pleading it, is a veritable ambush and a Court cannot rely on such evidence.
– O. Daniel-Kalio, JCA. Egypt v. Abdoulaye (2017) – CA/K/540/2014
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry