admissions & confessions

A person will be said to have admitted the statement or evidence of the other party in any of the following ways: Where he or she expressly admit the evidence of the other party by confirming the evidence as true.

Where he impliedly, by his act or conduct, accepts as true the evidence of the other party. For instance a party refusing to challenge the affidavit evidence of the adverse party or refusing to controvert the evidence given by the adverse party during his examination in chief.

Generally, statements made either orally or in writing, express or implied, by a party in a suit which is adverse to his case is said to be an admission and same can be used against him.

See Agbahamovo V. Eduyegbe (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 740 170 (at 183); Francis V. Citec Int Estate Ltd (2017) HELAR ratio 3

Where a party has pleaded facts upon which his right is disputed in a suit and the adverse party admits these facts, then it will not be necessary for the court to call evidence to prove such case. This is because when facts are admitted, nothing is disputed any more, and as such there will be no need to call evidence as nothing is there to resolve. The court is entitled to give judgment on the pleadings.

See Bunge V. Gov. Rivers State (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 573 (at 599-600); Olaiya V The State (2017) HELAR ratio 4; Francis V. Citec Int Estate Ltd (2017) HELAR ratio 3; Barau V. Consolidted Tin Mines Ltd (2019) HELAR ratio 5

This is not always the case. Although, acts of possession and enjoyment of land may be evidence of ownership not only of the particular piece of land but also of other land situated or connected with it, however, where another person can sufficiently prove title to the land, then an act of possession and enjoyment may not suffice to prove ownership. It is a presumption that is rebuttable by concrete evidence.

See Section 35 Evidence Act, 2011; Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) NSCC 445; Barau V. Consolidted Tin Mines Ltd (2019) HELAR ratio 4

Under Section 20 Evidence Act, 2011 where a person makes a statement whether oral or in writing expressly or by implication suggesting the inference that the fact which is the basis of a suit is true, such constitute an admission. Where a party makes a statement adverse to or against his interest, such constitute an admission which generally works against the maker. In spite of this general rule, it is good to note however that not all admission can be construed against the maker. For an admission to qualify as a basis for entering judgment against the maker, such admission must be direct, logical, clear, it must relate to the material facts of the case. Also, an admission that is incidental to the main relief in a suit is not sufficient admission upon which the court can base its decision. Thus where ‘A’ acknowledges his indebtedness to ‘B’, such will not be a proper admission upon which the court can grant judgment if the specific amount is disputed.

See Ibokolo V. Tariah (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 658) 1943; Narindex Trust Ltd. V. Nigerian Inter-Continental Merchant Bank Ltd. (2001) FWLR (Pt. 49) 1546; Victabo Ventures Ltd. v. W. Van Der Zwan & Z.N.B.V. (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 490) 756 CA.

Where statement are made by a party in a proceeding, which is clear, unequivocal and against the interest of the person who made the statement, such is an admission which the court will readily rely on in considering its judgment as long as the said admission is material to the fact of the case. Where however, a person admits to a fact on behalf of another, and the court is satisfied that from the circumstance of the case the maker of the statement is authorized by the party (principal) to make such statement, such would constitute an admission upon which the court can act. The court need not call the principal for his own version.

SeeSection 21(1) Evidence Act, 2011.

This is not always the case. For such statement to amount to an admission, such statement must be made while the party making them held the representative character. By Section 21(2) Evidence Act, 2011, statements made by parties to a suit, suing or sued in a representative character are not admissions unless the At no instance will this be possible. Statement made by a party in previous proceeding cannot be construed against such party in a later proceeding nor will it be construed as an admission in a later case. At best, such previous statement can only be used to discredit or contradict such party under cross-examination in a later proceeding. See Ajeigbe V. Odedina (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 72) 584 SC.

As stated before, an admission is an acknowledgement that a fact is true, usually made by a party to a case and offered against another party. The effect of this is that once an allegation is acknowledged, it is taken as established as such; the truth of that allegation is no longer in dispute. The essence of an admission is to save time and to ensure quick dispensation of justice. Once there is an admission, it means there is no dispute. Admission act as a short cut in the judicial process as they save so much valuable litigation time and money.

See WEMA Bank Plc. V. L.T.I (Nig) Ltd. (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 606) 452 (at 453-454).

The fact that a party to a suit admits a fact does not mean the court in a bid to dispense with the case quickly, adopts the admission as evidence against the maker. Apart from the fact that an admission must be clear, relevant, unambiguous, the court still goes ahead to evaluate the admission by looking at how valuable the admission is and the circumstance in which it was made. The court usually takes an admission together with the explanation that follows it, if any. The trial judge usually looks at the issue and the due weight to give to treat it as an admission. The court also has a duty to satisfy itself that the explanation following the admission is not one which is inconsistent with the circumstance of the event.

See WEMA Bank Plc. V. L.T.I (Nig) Ltd. (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 606) 452 -455; Okesuji V. Lawal (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 22) 417.

Yes, an accused person can be convicted on the basis of his own confession. This is known as confessional statement. A confessional statement is a voluntary admission of guilt made by a person charged with a criminal offence, inferring that indeed the maker of the statement has committed the crime. See Sections 28, 29 and 200 Evidence Act, 2011; Egboghonome v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383 SC; Ukpamazi V The State (2020)HELAR ratio 2; Muhammadu V The State (2020) HELAR ratio 5; Ifalacho V. The State(2019) HELAR ratio 1

No, the fact that several persons are charged to court the same time on the allegation that they have committed jointly a crime does not by that fact alone mean that the confession of one is the confession of all. The confession of an accused person can only be binding on a co-accused person where he adopts the confession as his also. Confessions are deemed to be relevant facts against only the person who made them. See Bassey V. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 469; Akinsuwa V. The State (2019) HELAR ratio 2; Sunday V. The State (2020) HELAR ratio 3

No. A confession does not become inadmissible merely because an accused person denies making it. This is because such denial is an issue of fact to be decided by the court in judgment as such issue does not affect the admissibility of the confession. Where a confessional statement is denied, the court will admit same and consider it with the entire evidence and circumstance of the case when giving judgment. See Dele V. State (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1229) 508; Ibrahim v C.O.P (2020)HELAR ratio 5

The court does not blindly admit a confessional statement and rely on same to convict an accused person. Where the voluntariness of a confessional statement is denied, the court is not bound to act on it in the first instance. For a retracted or challenged confessional statement to be relied on as valid the court will call for a trial-within-trial in order to determine the voluntariness and truthfulness of the confession first before admitting and relying on it as evidence in the matter.

See Egboghonome v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383 SC; Ujang V. The State (2017) HELAR ratio 1 and 4

As stated earlier, a retraction from a confessional statement by an accused person is not enough to render it inadmissible. But how the court comes to rely on the confession that the accused denied is another thing all together.

The Trial-Within-Trial test for determining the veracity or otherwise of the confessional statement is to seek any other evidence however slight or circumstantial which makes it probable that the confessional statement is true. The step by step test probes the circumstances by getting answers to the following questions: Whether there is anything outside the confession to show that it is true;

Whether the confession is corroborated no matter how slight;

Whether the facts contained in the confession will be true if tested;

Whether the accused person had the opportunity to commit the offence;

Whether the confession of the accused person was possible;

Whether the confession was consistent with other fact which has been proved.

See Alarape V. State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 41) 1872 SC; Igbinowaya V. The State (2019) HELAR ratio 3; Edet V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR ratio 5

The question or challenge of the voluntariness of a confessional statement should be raised at the time the statement is sought to be tendered. Thus the right time to question the voluntariness of a confessional statement is the moment it is being sought to be tendered. It is wrong for the defence to wait until when the defence of the accused person is opened and being argued.

See Alarape V. State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 41) 1872 SC; Dele V. State (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1229) 508; Sunday V. The State (2017) HELAR ratio 2

When a trial within trial is conducted, such procedure is not for formality but to enquire into an admission and determine whether or not the admission was voluntarily made before it is accepted as concrete evidence.

Hence, it is the duty of the trial court to rule one way or the other in a trial within trial. The court cannot properly convict an accused person on the basis of the confession where the voluntariness of the confession is in doubt.

See Dele V. State (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1229) 508.

Where the voluntariness of a confessional statement is in doubt, it is the duty of the prosecution to show that the confession was indeed obtained voluntarily. The prosecution is expected to prove that the statement was not obtained by force of oppression, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. Like every specific aspect of criminal trial, the prosecution is expected to prove the case of the voluntariness of the statement beyond reasonable doubt.

See Section 29 Evidence Act, 2011; Eragha V. The State (2019) HELAR ratio 1;

Where a statement is obtained from an accused person, such statement can be used as a confessional statement against the person who made it. What is important is that the statement is relevant and voluntary. It is immaterial whether the statement is gotten by deception or under the promise of secrecy.

See Section 31 Evidence Act, 2011. R. v. Omisade (1965) NMLR 85