NAAJA STANDARD RESOURCES CO. LTD & ORS v. UNION BANK
(2022)LCN/17170(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022
CA/L/113M/2013
Before Our Lordships:
Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal
Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. NAAJA STANDARD RESOURCES CO. LTD. 2. BARRISTER N. ABUMCHUKWU OKOYE 3. MR. IFEANYI EZEOBI APPELANT(S)
And
UNION BANK PLC RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT A JUDGE IN A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CAN MAKE ORDERS OR GIVE JUDGEMENT WHERE ADMISSIONS OF FACTS HAVE BEEN MADE, WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Order 19 Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 which is in pari materia with the 2004 Rules provides:
“The Judge may, on application, at a case management conference or at any other stage of the proceedings where admissions of fact have been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, make such orders or give such judgment as upon such admissions a party may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties.” PER BAYERO, J.C.A.
THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL PARTIES AND THE COURTS ARE BOUND BY THE PLEADINGS OR ADMISSIONS
After all parties and the Court are bound by the admissions/pleadings – Unity Bank Plc v Bouari (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086) 372 AT 381, Abubakar v. Joseph (2008)13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 307. Furthermore, Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011 vividly provides as follows: “No fact need be proved in any civil proceedings which the parties to the proceedings or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings”. PER BAYERO, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT ADMISSION OF A CLAIM IS THE BEST FORM OF PROOF
Admission of a claim (or part thereof) by an adversary in litigation, whether contained in pleadings or otherwise, is the best form of proof, which obviates the necessity of leading evidence to establish that very same claim. It is hornbook law that facts admitted need not be proved: S. 123 of the Evidence Act 2011, UREDI v DADA (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 69) 237, CHIEF OKPARAEKE & ORS v O. EGBUONU & ORS (1947) 7 WACA 53 and NDAYAKO v JIKANTORO & ORS (2004) 8 MJSC 163 at 185. As Aniagolu, JSC put it in OJUKWU v ONWUDIWE& ORS 179841 NSCC 172 at 199: “Another principle deeply enshrined in our jurisprudence is that admissions made do not require proof for the simple reason, amongst others that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” and that no better proof is required than that which an adversary wholly and voluntarily owns up on”. In our adjectival law, an issue in a civil action conducted by pleadings emerges only where the Court, upon a comparison of the averments in the statement of claim and the statement of defence, identifies the matters actually in dispute between the parties and upon which it is necessary to lead evidence. There is no dispute between parties on matters which have been admitted in the pleadings and generally, evidence on such admitted matters is to be excluded. The isolation of issues truly in dispute from those not in dispute enables the Court to save valuable time and cost, and it is by this process that the Court is enabled to receive evidence only on matters in respect of matters in controversy between the parties. See ADEDEJI v OLOSO (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 356) 670 at 634-635 -per Oguntade JSC and INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v THAWARDES (1978) 3 SC 143. PER AFFEN, J.C.A.
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Lagos Judicial Division of the High Court of Lagos State on the 5th April, 2012 delivered its judgment in the Suit No: LD/1240/2011 (Naaja Standard Resources Company Limited & Ors. vs. Union Bank Plc.), wherein the Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent/Defendant. The Appellants, who were the Claimants in the lower Court, initiated the suit vide the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated and filed on 5th July, 2011 with the 2nd Claimant’s statement on oath filed alongside. The reliefs sought from the lower Court as endorsed on the face of the writ and the statement of claim are as follows:
1. An Order of this Honourable Court granting perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from selling, advertising for sale in any form or manner or canvassing for the sale of the 3rd Claimant’s property situate along Olakunle Soga Street, Oriya Village, Ikorodu, Lagos State with Certificate of Occupancy No: 62/62/20029 dated 10th July, 2002 as third party mortgage is invalid and or irregular.
2. A DECLARATION that by the letter dated 4th May, 2011, the 3rd party mortgage with the 3rd Claimant with respect to the aforementioned property is null and void.
3. A Mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to refund to the 1st Claimant’s all the monies paid through Union Bank Plc between 6th April, 2010 to 12th April, 2010 representing rates, taxes and dues including legal perfection fees for the 3rd party mortgage with the 3rd Claimant.
4. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to deduct all the payments for taxes, dues and legal perfection of the third party mortgage and also deduction from excess charges on interest rate in the transaction in line with Central Bank of Nigeria’s guidelines and regulations on loans to customers for the period April 2010 – May 2011 and thereby determine the actual sum and interest due to the Defendant.
5. An Order directing the Defendant to release forthwith the original title documents belonging to the 3rd Defendant, Mr. Ifeanyi Ezeobi with Certificate of Occupancy No. 62/62/20029 situate along Olakunle Soga Street, Oriya Village, Ikorodu, Lagos State.
In support of the application is an eleven paragraphs affidavit of urgency filed by the Appellants in the suit, it was deposed to by the 2nd Appellant herein. The Appellants filed a Motion on Notice on 5th July, 2011 wherein they sought for the following reliefs:
1. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents herein, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies, assigns and successors-in-title from selling, negotiating the sale or concluding the sale, advertising for sale in any form or manner or canvassing for the sale of the 3rd Claimant’s property situate along Olakunle Street, Oriya Village, Ikorodu, Lagos State with Certificate of Occupancy No: 62/62/20029 dated 10th July, 2002, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.
2. An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, their agents, servants, officers or by whatever name so called from resorting to violence, arrest, detention, intimidation and or harassment of the Applicants by the Respondent either by herself and or using any security agents/organizations and or commissions pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The application was supported by a twenty paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 2nd Appellant, who was the chairman of the 1st Appellant Company; same was annexed with a considerable number of documentary exhibits. There was also a written address in support of the application, as reproduced in pages 1-51 of the record. The Respondent filed a Counter affidavit on 5th July, 2011 of fifteen Paragraphs sworn to by Matthew Nkap, a legal practitioner in the law office of the Respondent’s counsel with a written address in support. The Respondent filed the statement of defence & counter-claim wherein the Respondent counter claimed against the Appellants, jointly and severally, as follows:
1. The sum of N12, 997, 968. 97 being the outstanding indebtedness of the Claimants inclusive of interest as at 29th July, 2011 arising from overdraft facilities granted to the 1st and 2nd Claimants.
2. Interest at the rate of 21% from August 30, 2011 until judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% until final liquidation.
The Appellants filed their Reply/Defence to Counter Claim and a written address in support of the reply to the counter-claim. There was also a Reply to Counter Affidavit dated 28th October, 2011 the fifteen paragraph reply affidavit was deposed to by Evarist Ezeoke, Esq., the Appellants’ counsel. It is important to note that the Respondent later filed a Motion on Notice dated 21st February, 2012 which was filed on 29th February, 2012, same was brought pursuant to Order 39 Rule 1 and Order 19 Rules 1 & 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, therein; the Respondent prayed the lower Court for the following reliefs:
1. An Order entering judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Applicant herein in the sum of N11, 000, 000.00 (Eleven Million Naira) only, based upon admissions made by the Claimants/Respondents.
2. An Order awarding commercial interest at the rate of 25% per annum on the said sum from when judgment is entered until full liquidation of the said judgment sum, and;
Such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.
The application was supported by a sixteen paragraph affidavit which was deposed to by Jayne Nelson Uzuegbu, a legal practitioner in the law office of counsel for the Respondent herein with a written address. As gleaned from the record before the Court, the said application for judgment was later withdrawn by the Respondent on 22nd March, 2012, consequent upon which the motion was struck out by the lower Court.
A similar application was however filed on 1st March, 2012 vide the motion on notice praying the lower Court, inter alia, for “An Order entering judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Applicant herein in the sum of N12, 000, 000.00 (Twelve Million Naira) only, ……”, the application was filed on other terms similar to the withdrawn application. See pages 145-158 of the record.
At Pages 163-167 of the record was reproduced the Appellants’ Written Address in Opposition to Motion for Judgment dated 1st March 2012, it was filed on 9th March, 2012. The written address was in support of the seventeen paragraph Counter Affidavit Against Motion for Judgment dated 1st March 2012 which was deposed to by Evarist Ezeoke, of counsel representing the Appellants – Pages 170-174 of the record.
The respondent, in return, filed a thirteen paragraph Reply Affidavit to Counter Affidavit Sworn to on the 9th March 2012, it was sworn to by Jayne Nelson Uzuegbu, of counsel representing the Respondent, same is found in pages 175-177 of the record. The Respondent filed a reply on points of law as found in pages 178-180 of the record.
In a considered but concise judgment delivered on 5th April, 2012, as reproduced in Pages 221-224 of the record, the learned trial judge entered judgment in favour of the Respondent herein, in the sum of N12 Million, found by the lower Court to have been admitted by the Appellants herein, post judgment rate of 10% was equally granted on the judgment sum in favour of the Respondent. The Appellants were irked by the said judgment of the lower Court and had instituted this appeal vide the Notice of Appeal filed on 24th April, 2012. The Appellants’ Brief of Argument was filed on 11th February, 2013 in which two (2) issues are distilled for determination, thus:
1. “Whether the Honourable Court below was right in awarding judgment in the sum of N12,000,000.00 (Twelve Million Naira) to the Respondent without properly evaluating all the pleadings and documents before the Court, particularly the contract dated 1st April, 2010, counter affidavit against motion for judgment and written address in opposition dated 9th March, 2012.”
2. “Whether fair hearing was accorded the Appellants/Applicants in determining this suit in its entirety and the award of N12,000,000.00 as judgment sum on admission, in total and utter disregard to the entire pleadings and the issue of breach of the contract that gave rise to the transaction by the Respondent in the Third Party Mortgage Transaction.”
The Respondent’s Brief of Argument was filed on 12th January, 2022, deemed properly filed and served on 18th January, 2022. Two issues for determination were distilled by the Respondent, to wit:
1. “Is the lower Court’s judgment against the Appellants reasonably disputable considering the pleadings and overwhelming documentary evidence as well as diverse admissions all of which point irresistibly to their liability for the amount awarded.”
2. “Whether the entire proceedings of the lower Court which culminated in the judgment dated 5th April, 2012, based upon the express admissions by the Appellants in the 1st Appellant’s letter dated 3rd March, 2011 and copiously replicated in the Appellants’ pleadings in any way, manner or form, violated the Appellants’ right to fair hearing and therefore necessitating setting aside the said judgment by this Honourable Court of Appeal.”
The Appellant responded on points of law, to the supposed new legal issues raised in the Respondent’s brief of argument. The Appellants’ Reply on Points of law was filed on 17th January, 2022 but deemed as properly filed and served on 18th January, 2022. Counsel for the Appellants, in arguing issue 1, highlighted the background facts leading to the initiation of the suit in the lower Court, as being that of a loan facility, in the sum of N10 Million, granted to the 1st Appellant Company on 1st April, 2010 by the Respondent Bank, the loan contract, which had a tenor of 1 year, was said to have been breached in some of its fundamental terms, hence the institution of the suit in the lower Court to seek redress.
It was submitted that the lower Court failed to properly evaluate the pleadings of the Appellants as well as the documentary evidence placed before it, prior to its decision that the Appellants admitted their indebtedness to the Respondent Bank, in the sum of N12 Million. Counsel contended vide the decision in Nwankwo vs. Nwankwo (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 394) 153 at 171 that the Appellants were never allowed to explain the circumstances and show that the admission was due to the ignorance of the real facts or other circumstances which sufficiently explain them. Counsel restated the law to the effect that an admission must be clear and unequivocal -IMB Plc. vs. Comrade Cycle Co. Ltd. (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 574) 460. Counsel asserted that the Appellants, at nowhere, admitted to pay the said sum as the debt due to the Respondent. That the lower Court actually neglected and paid no heed to the pleading filed before it by the Appellants before arriving at its decision. It was contended that the lower Court’s decision was also premised on a Court process said to have been duly filed by the Appellants in the lower Court, it was submitted also that the issues of accrued interests between the parties and that of refund to the Appellants by the Respondent, were left unresolved by the lower Court. The Court was urged to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellants.
On issue 2, learned counsel emphasized the import of the need of the Court to dispense justice by affording fair hearing in the matter before it – Somai Sonka Co. Nig. Ltd. vs. Adzege (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 718) 312. The Court was urged to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court, and that the suit be remitted to the lower Court for retrial.
On its part, the Respondent averred that the provision of Order 19 Rules 1 and 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, was pivotal to the case of the Respondent as it relates to the motion for judgment in the lower Court and the decision arrived therefrom by the lower Court, which is in contention in the instant appeal. It was then submitted that the lower Court was correct to enter judgment in favour of the Respondent, as in the instance, in line with its rules – National Bank of Nigeria Limited vs. Gutherie Nig. Ltd. & Anor. (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 255 at 257.
On whether selected paragraphs of the Appellants’ pleadings suffice as admission by the Appellants that could validly ground judgment being entered in favour of the Respondent, as in the instance, counsel cited the provision of Section 20 of the Evidence Act, 2011, and submitted that the Appellants expressly admitted the indebtedness in the sum of N12 Million vide their letter dated 3rd May, 2012, addressed to the Respondent – Unity Bank Plc. vs. Bouari (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086) 372 at 381. According to Counsel, the Appellants are bound by their said admissions.
On whether or not the right to fair hearing of the Appellants was infringed upon, it was the Respondent’s contention that the Appellants’ allegation of breach of fair hearing was diversionary and was purposely to confuse the Court. It was argued that the parties were in agreement that there was an overdraft facility granted and that same was due for repayment, it was averred that the construction of the Appellants’ letter dated 3rd May, 2011 and subsequent averments in their statement of claim, amongst others, precipitated the Respondent’s motion for judgment as filed in the lower Court, and the subsequent decision of the lower Court being appealed herein. It was stated that the Respondent made an honest mistake in referring to selected paragraphs of the Appellants’ Counter Affidavit dated January 25, 2010 and that the said process was non-existent as held by the lower Court. The Respondent submitted that the lower Court was right in its finding that the process was not in existence at trial.
On the argument canvassed by the Appellants on the issue of 25% interest rate accruable on the subject overdraft transaction between the parties herein, it was argued that the issue did not arise from any of the grounds of appeal as set down in the notice of appeal filed by the Appellants – Onwubuya vs. Ikegbunam (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1697) 94 at 109. That the Appellants are precluded from importing, into the contract between the parties, terms not intended in the said contract as reflected in the Respondent’s letter dated 1st April, 2010 addressed to the 1st Appellant Company, titled Banking Facility. Counsel further submitted that the Appellants were liable to the Respondent for the said judgment sum as awarded by the lower Court.
In the reply, by the Appellants, supposedly on points of law, it was observed that learned counsel for the Appellants nearly fell into the error of re-arguing the same issue and in the same manner as canvassed in the Appellants’ brief.
On the issue of admission by the Appellants, learned counsel cited the decision in Insurance Brokers of Nigeria vs. Atlantic Textile Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 466) 316 at 321 and submitted that the judgment of the lower Court was hastily handed down against the Appellants. The Court was urged to set aside the said judgment of the lower Court.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN THE APPEAL
Order 19 Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 which is in pari materia with the 2004 Rules provides:
“The Judge may, on application, at a case management conference or at any other stage of the proceedings where admissions of fact have been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, make such orders or give such judgment as upon such admissions a party may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties.”
At paragraphs 11, 12 and 19 of the statement of claim contained in the writ of summons dated 5-07-2011 it was averred to thus:-
11 ”the 2nd Claimant pursuant to the company’s resolution, on the 3rd May, 2011 by their letter indicated that the company, 1st Claimant is willing and ready to finally liquidate and requested that interest should be stopped on the account. The principal amount and interest in the total sum of N12,000,000.00 to be paid via a post dated cheque to be issued and dated May 31st 2011, and another in June 30th, 2011. The Claimant shall rely on the said letter dated the 3rd May, 2011 during trial.”
12 ”The Defendant on the same date, 3rd May 2011, by their letter addressed to the Chairman of the 1st Claimant vehemently refused to accept the mode of payment of the overdraft facility’s principal sum and interest on two installments of N60,000,000.00 (six Million Naira only) on 31st May 2011 and 30 June 2011, insisting that it has to be paid 100% on the 31 May 2011 with full interest, or else a penalty interest will be generated on the account. The Claimant shall at the trial of this suit rely on the said letter by the Defendant dated 3rd May, 2011.”
19 ”The Claimants aver that they are ready and willing to liquidate the overdraft facility and legitimate interest as stated by their letter of 3rd May 2011, in two installments of N6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) each and unless this Honourable Court intervenes, the Defendant will carry out its hatched plan and visit a lot of injustice on the Claimants and convert the property to itself or dispose of the property.”
It seems clear and without any doubt that the above provisions of the Rules of the Lower Court gave power to that Court as a matter of priority to enter judgment and/or make any other appropriate order in that regard to a deserving party whenever there is admission(s) either in the pleading or howsoever the admission(s) are made. In the present circumstances therefore, the totality of the Appellants’ averments in Paragraphs 11, 12 and 19 of the Statement of Claim (Pages 4 & 5 of the record of Appeal) which were replicated in Paragraph 12 of the 2nd Appellant’s statement under (sic) oath (Page 9 of the record of Appeal) and also in the 1st Appellant’s letter to the Respondent dated 3rd May, 2011 (Page 29 of the record of Appeal), point irresistibly to the fact of the Appellants’ indebtedness to the Respondent and therefore constitute admissions of facts.
The procedure under Order 19 Rule 4 of the (Civil Procedure) Rules by which the Lower Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent summarily without proceeding to formal trial by calling of evidence is well entrenched and recognized in the firmament of Nigerian jurisprudence, having been adopted in a long list of cases by the Court of Appeal as well as the Supreme Court. In National Bank of Nigeria Limited vs. Guthrie (Nigeria) Limited & Anor. (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 255 at 257, it was held as follows:
“The object of the provision of the Rules relating to judgment on admission is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed”.
Similarly, in the case of Anason Farms Ltd vs. Nal Merchant Bank (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 331) 243, it was held as follows:
“…where admission of facts have been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, a party may at any stage of the cause or matter apply to the Court or Judge in Chambers for judgment or order as upon such admission as may be entitled to without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties.”
It therefore follows that the ruling/judgment of the lower Court dated 5th April, 2012 made pursuant to the Respondent’s application of the Motion on Notice dated 1st day of March, 2012, based on the express admissions of the Appellants in their pleadings and other documentary evidence before the lower Court is valid and well founded in law.
Section 20 of the Evidence Act defines admission as follows:
“An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, or conduct which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and in the circumstances, hereafter mention in this Act…….”
The above definition from the Evidence Act is very apt to the circumstances of the present case in the sense that an admission can be oral, written or by conduct from which an inference can be drawn from.
In the present circumstance therefore, it is obviously inferable from the 1st Appellant’s letter to the Respondent dated 3rd May, 2012 that the Appellants admitted/acknowledged their indebtedness to the Respondent and the attendant readiness to liquidate same in two equal installments of N6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) each.
The said letter and the subsequent averment in the Appellants’ pleadings constitute express admission/ acknowledgement of indebtedness and readiness to liquidate same and having been so admitted, the Appellants cannot and would not be allowed to pull a wool over the eyes of this Honourable Court and be heard in argument to the contrary. After all parties and the Court are bound by the admissions/pleadings – Unity Bank Plc v Bouari (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086) 372 AT 381, Abubakar v. Joseph (2008)13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 307. Furthermore, Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011 vividly provides as follows: “No fact need be proved in any civil proceedings which the parties to the proceedings or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings”. The Appellants, having admitted in clear and expressed terms their indebtedness to the Respondent, have absolutely removed the legal burden of proof on the Respondent to otherwise prove same and consequently, the lower Court was therefore right in entering judgment for the Respondent on the admitted sum of N12,000,000.00 (Twelve Million Naira) being the principal debt and accrued interest. The lower Court took full cognizance and made reference to the Appellants’ Counter Affidavit dated March 9, 2012 in opposition to the Respondent’s motion judgment, there is therefore really no basis for the Appellants’ claim of absence of fair hearing in the circumstances.
In Adebayo vs. A.G., Ogun State (2008)7 NWLR (Pt. 1085), 201 at 221-222, G-C thus:
“Learned Counsel for the Appellant robed in the fair hearing principle. I have seen in recent times that parties who have bad cases embrace and make use of the constitutional provision of fair hearing to bamboozle the adverse party and the Court, with a view to moving the Court away from the live issues in the litigation. They make so much weather and sing the familiar song that the constitutional provision is violated or contravened.
They do not stop there. They rake the defence in most inappropriate cases because they have nothing to canvass in their favour in the case. The fair hearing provision in the Constitution is the machinery or locomotive of justice, not a spare part to propel or invigorate the case of the user. It is not a casual principle of law available to a party to be picked up at will in a case and force the Court to apply it to his advantage. On the contrary, it is a formidable and fundamental constitutional provision available to a party who is really denied fair hearing because he was not heard or that he was not properly heard in the case. Let litigants who have nothing useful to advocate in favour of their cases, leave the fair hearing constitutional provision alone because it is not available to them just for the asking.”
This Appeal is therefore unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court in Suit No. LD/1240/2011 delivered on 5th April, 2012 is hereby affirmed. Fifty thousand Naira is hereby awarded as cost in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.: I had the singular privilege to peruse, in advance, the leading judgment delivered by my learned brother: Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero, JCA. I agree with the legal reasoning and conclusion in it. l too dismiss the appeal. I abide by the consequential orders decreed in the leading judgment.
PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of a preview of the judgment delivered by my Learned Brother, ABDULLAHI M. BAYERO, JCA wherein the facts and issues in contention are set out in extensor.
Admission of a claim (or part thereof) by an adversary in litigation, whether contained in pleadings or otherwise, is the best form of proof, which obviates the necessity of leading evidence to establish that very same claim. It is hornbook law that facts admitted need not be proved: S. 123 of the Evidence Act 2011, UREDI v DADA (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 69) 237, CHIEF OKPARAEKE & ORS v O. EGBUONU & ORS (1947) 7 WACA 53 and NDAYAKO v JIKANTORO & ORS (2004) 8 MJSC 163 at 185. As Aniagolu, JSC put it in OJUKWU v ONWUDIWE& ORS 179841 NSCC 172 at 199: “Another principle deeply enshrined in our jurisprudence is that admissions made do not require proof for the simple reason, amongst others that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” and that no better proof is required than that which an adversary wholly and voluntarily owns up on”. In our adjectival law, an issue in a civil action conducted by pleadings emerges only where the Court, upon a comparison of the averments in the statement of claim and the statement of defence, identifies the matters actually in dispute between the parties and upon which it is necessary to lead evidence. There is no dispute between parties on matters which have been admitted in the pleadings and generally, evidence on such admitted matters is to be excluded. The isolation of issues truly in dispute from those not in dispute enables the Court to save valuable time and cost, and it is by this process that the Court is enabled to receive evidence only on matters in respect of matters in controversy between the parties. See ADEDEJI v OLOSO (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 356) 670 at 634-635 -per Oguntade JSC and INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v THAWARDES (1978) 3 SC 143.
In the case at hand, the Appellants herein (as claimants) averred in paragraph 19 of the statement of claim that they are “ready and willing to liquidate the overdraft facility and legitimate interest as stated in their letter of 3rd May 2017, in two installments of N6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) each and unless this Honourable Court intervenes, the Defendant will carry out its hatched plan and visit a lot of injustice on the Claimants and convert the property to itself or dispose of the property”. As also averred in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of claim, the letter of 3rd May 2011 referred to above was written pursuant to a resolution of the 1st Appellant (qua 1st claimant at the lower Court) to that effect. There is therefore no gainsaying that the Appellants admitted, unequivocally, their indebtedness to the Respondent in the sum of N12,000,000.00 (Twelve Million Naira) as principal and accrued “legitimate interest” on the overdraft facility granted to them by the Respondent.
Fundamentally, Order 19 Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil procedure) Rules 2012 provides that a Judge may, on application, at a Case Management Conference or any other stage of the proceedings, enter judgment on the basis of admission of facts in the pleadings or otherwise without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties. The lower Court cannot therefore be faulted for entering the judgment on the basis of the Appellants’ admission in the pleadings.
In light of the foregoing, I cannot but affirm my agreement with the leading judgment dismissing this appeal for want of merit.
Appearances:
E. C. Ezeoke, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Mathew Nkap Esq, with him, Perpetual Onwunma, Esq. For Respondent(s)
