CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

OLUWALOGBON MOTORS APPELLANTS

---

NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants instituted a suit at the Federal High Court seeking for a review, reconciliation and regularisation of the Appellant’s account when it was alleged that he was indebted to the defunct Metropolitan bank Ltd in the sum of N544, 578,134.72k. The Respondent as the official liquidator of the defunct bank counter-claimed in the sum of N593, 001,051.11. The court granted the Appellant’s claims and struck out the Respondent’s counter-claim on the ground that it was irregularly instituted. In compliance with the court order, the Respondent got an independent auditor to review the 1st Appellant’s account and arrived at the sum of N556,204,033.85k as the sum owed by the 1st Appellant to the defunct bank. The 1st Appellant was dissatisfied with the sum arrived at on the grounds that the audit was non-inclusive, incomplete and that the Respondent’s auditor used presumptive figures in its calculation. The Appellants then engaged its own auditor to review the audit conducted by the Respondent’s audit and he arrived at the sum of N114, 395,880.08k. The Respondent disagreed with the Appellant’s sum and maintained that the Appellant’s indebtedness was as stated in its own independent audit report and then proceeded to institute this suit presently on appeal before this court. Along with the suit, the Respondent also filed a motion for judgment based on admission in the sum of N255, 294,889.71k against the 1st Appellant. The lower court after hearing both parties entered judgment in the sum of N255, 294,889.71k as debt of the Appellants based on its admission. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower court, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether letter dated 9th of November, 2005 is an admission. Whether taking into account the peculiar circumstance of this case to wit; the Respondent’s claim totally and the Appellants’ denial thereof, it was a denial of fair hearing for the trial court to have heard and entered judgment in favour of Respondent based on the Respondent’s application dated 26th day of October, 2016.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ADMISSION- DEFINITION OF ADMISSION

---

“The word admission has been defined in the case of Nigerian Advertising Services Ltd & Anor v UBA PLC & Anor (2005) LPLER – 2009(SC) per AKINTAN, JSC to mean:
“An admission, as defined in Blacks Law dictionary, 6TH edition, 1990, page 47, is a statement made by one of the parties to an action which amounts to a prior acknowledgement by him that one of the material facts relevant to the issues is not as he now claims.’’
“Also in Omisore & Anor V Aregbesola & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24803 (SC), the apex court defined it as:
“A voluntary acknowledgement made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claim in an action.” See Vockie V General Motors Corp, Chevrolet Division D.C. PA 66 FRD 57, 60 (Black dictionary, sixth edition of page 47) per FABIYI, JSC (P. 25). See also Adusei V Adebayo [2012] 3 NWLR (PT 1288) 534…”

---

ADMISSION – ADMISSION IS THE BEST EVIDENCE

---

“In Eco Int’l Bank Plc V Nulge, Jalingo LGC & Anor (2014) LPELR – 24171 (CA) this court held that:
“An admission of a party in law is the best evidence, in the sense that the opposing party need not make any strenuous effort to prove the admitted facts. Thus, a court of law is entitled to give judgment based on an admission by a party if the admission is relevant to the facts in issue. In civil cases, admission by a party is evidence of the facts asserted against him…”

---

ADMISSION – GROUND ON WHICH AN ADMISSION CAN BIND A PARTY

---

“In Kano V Govt Of Adamawa State & Ors (2014) LPELR-24161(CA) this court held that:
“However, an admission, in order to bind the party admitting, must be clear, unequivocal and total. Admission is not a game of chance. It is not a subject of speculation or conjecture. On the contrary, it is a total and comprehensive statement orally made or in writing suggesting a clear and unequivocal inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact unfavourable to the conclusion contended by the person by whom or in whose behalf the statement is made. See Orji V Dorji Texitles Mill Nig Ltd (2009) 12 SCNJ 251 at 276, per NIKI TOBI, JSC…” –

---

ADMISSION – STATUTORY DEFINITION OF ADMISSION

---

“Section 20 of the Evidence Act, 2011 states that:
“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 circumstances, mentioned in this Act.”-

---

ADMISSION – DUTY OF COURT WHERE A PARTY ADMITS TO OWING PART OF A DEFINITE SUM

---

“In Ali v NDIC (2014) LPELR – 22422 (CA) this court held that:
“…where a claim is for a definite sum and the defendant admits owing part of it; no difficulty should arise in the court entering judgment for the admitted sum…”

---

ADMISSION – NATURE OF AN ADMISSION

---

“An admission is always admissible against its maker as truth of the fact asserted therein. Therefore in civil cases, admissions are evidence of facts asserted against but not in favour of such party”. See the cases of Nwuke V Union Bank Plc (2009) 10 NWLR (PT 1148) 1; Cappa & D’alberto V Akintilo [2003] 9 NWLR (PT824) 49. –

---

ADMISSION – ON WHETHER A COURT CAN ENTER JUDGMENT ONCE AN ADMISSION IS MADE IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

---

“It is trite that a court can enter judgment once an admission is made in the course of the proceedings be it orally or documentary and it does not affect the main action; it is only a part of the claim that has been settled it certainly does not amount to breach of fair hearing.”

---

ADMISSION – WHETHER ADMITTED FACT NEEDS PROOF

---

“It is settled by long list of cases that what has been admitted needs no proof therefore the Respondent is not required to prove the debt having been willingly and voluntarily admitted. In Flourmills Ltd V Olokun (2007) LPLER – 8534 (CA), ABDULAHI, JCA held that in Section 19 of the Evidence Act, “an admission is a statement oral or documentary which suggest any inference as to any facts in issue or relevant facts which is made by any of the parties to a dispute” and also on the same point, BELGORE, JCA in P.I.P.C Security Ltd V Achos & Anor (2007) LPELR – 5150 (CA) held that: “It is trite that facts admitted requires no evidential proof.”-

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|

Evidence Act, 2011

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT