affidavit evidence

Affidavit is a voluntary declaration of facts written down and sworn to by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oath. These officials are usually a Notary Public, a Judge, a Magistrate, and a Commissioner for Oath etc. An affidavit is very important because it carries the authority of law as the truth if uncontroverted or where it is not self-contradictory or false. An affidavit seeks to present the facts of a case in clear and logical terms. SEE SECTION 107 EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 MONGUNO V. BIVEWHALES & CO. (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1231) 275CA; KOTOYE V. SARAKI (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 296) 710 at 723

Generally, where an affidavit remains unchallenged and uncontroverted, the court is bound to accept those facts as established and as facts deemed to have been admitted. The court is bound to take those facts as true. However, the court will not be bound to accept as true facts deposed in an affidavit where on the face of it, it is obvious that it is not true, not logical, self-contradictory or where the court has knowledge that contradicts it.See INEGBEDION V. SELO-OJEMEN (2013) ALL FWLT (PT.688) 907 @ P.916, PARAS. D-E; HONDA PLACE V. GLOBE MOTOR HOLDINGS NIG. LTD. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 273 (at 293-294); OKOYE & ANOR. V. CENTRE POINT MERCHANT BANK LTD. (2008) 8 CLRN P. 19; Oloyede V. The State (2017) HELAR ratio 2; Eze v. Unijos(2017) HELAR ratio 1

Where the deposition contained in an affidavit is conflicting and self-contradictory the court has no duty and cannot be expected to pick and choose which deposition to accord relevance to. This is because parties confronting the court with facts must do so with certainty and some good measure of exactness, parties must not expect the court to embark on titration process to filter the facts. See ACCESS BANK PLC. V. ADEWUSI (2017) ALL FWLR (883) P 1399 – 1400; DALE POWER SYSTMENS PLC V. WITT & BUSCH LTD. (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 394) 353; Alex V. Chief Of Naval Staff (2020) HELAR ratio 1 and 2;

The litigant upon whom an affidavit is served has the duty to controvert facts in that affidavit served on him. The court cannot controvert such fact in the affidavit on his behalf. In fact, where an adversary fails to controvert the fact in the affidavit served on him, such affidavit is deemed correct and admitted. See LONG JOHN V. BLAKK (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 555) P. 524 (at 547) SC; ONAGORUWA V. ADENIJI (1993) 5 NWLR (293) P. 317 (339). Ujom v Olafimihan & anor (2020) HELAR ratio 1 and 2; Baba-Panya V. President, FRN (2018) HELAR ratio 13

No, a party cannot by oral argument/submission counter an affidavit. The fact deposed in an affidavit cannot be thrown on the floor of the court for oral argument without properly countering those facts. It is the duty of the court to accept and act upon such uncontroverted depositions as true. A sworn affidavit cannot be objected to by oral argument. L.O.Y. (NIG) Ltd. V. U.B. Plc. (2017) All FWLR (pt. 873) p. 1653; Inegbedion v. Selo-Ojemen (2013) All FWLR (Pt.688) p.916, paras. D-E Oduah V. Okadigbo [2019] HELAR ratio 3,

No, a party cannot by oral argument/submission counter an affidavit. The fact deposed in an affidavit cannot be thrown on the floor of the court for oral argument without properly countering those facts. It is the duty of the court to accept and act upon such uncontroverted depositions as true. A sworn affidavit cannot be objected to by oral argument. L.O.Y. (NIG) Ltd. V. U.B. Plc. (2017) All FWLR (pt. 873) p. 1653; Inegbedion v. Selo-Ojemen (2013) All FWLR (Pt.688) p.916, paras. D-E Oduah V. Okadigbo [2019] HELAR ratio 3,

Where a court has been misled in an affidavit in order to obtain an Order, the trial judge on discovering the true facts is entitled to discharge the Order already given. However, if the true facts in the affidavit are discovered before the granting of the relief then, the application would be refused and the applicant’s deception in the affidavit would be fatal to his application. See AFOLABI V. MUDASHIRU (2010) 3 NWLR (P t. 1181) 328; L.O.Y. (NIG) Ltd. V. U.B. Plc. (2017) All FWLR (pt. 873) p. 1668

Filing of a counter affidavit is a clear demonstration of a party’s intention to oppose whatever application served on him. The court has no discretion whatsoever not to consider a counter affidavit before it. In fact, it would amount to a denial of fair hearing where the court refuses to do so. The court cannot as well refuse to consider a counter affidavit on the ground that the deponent is not in court. The court has no discretion to refuse a counter affidavit. See GEVER V. CHINA (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 315) P. 97 @ 106 CA

No, it is a matter of choice to counter or not to counter an affidavit. In fact, it will be unnecessary and a waste of filing fee to file a counter affidavit where the affidavit served is: a) Conflicting and self-contradictory. b) Where the applicant’s affidavit holds no weight so that countering it becomes unnecessary. c) Where the facts deposed in the affidavit are presumed true and admitted. Where the facts in the affidavit are presumed true but when taken together are not enough to sustain the prayer of the applicant. See FOLORUNSHO V. SHALOUB (1994) 3 NWLR (PT. 333) P. 13 (421) CA

Generally, where there is conflict with respect to affidavits evidence of the contesting parties, the court must resolve it by oral evidence. In fact, the court of law is not competent to resolve conflicting affidavit evidence without calling oral evidence. Where however, the court has enough documentary evidence in its record, the court on its own will resolve the conflict by resorting to documentary evidence at its disposal. See EZE V. UNIVERSITY OF JOS (2017) ALL FWLR (PT.898) 101 @ PP.113-114, PARAS. H-A; INEGBEDION V. SELO-OJEMEN (2013) ALL FWLR (PT.688) 907; UBA LTD. V. TAAN (1993) 4 ONAGORUWA V. ADENIJI (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 293) P. 317 (AT 347); EZEGBU V. FATB (1992) I NWLR (PT. 220) P. 699 (720). Eze v. Unijos (2017) HELAR ratio 1; Alex V. Chief Of Naval Staff (2020) HELAR ratio 1 and 2;

The effect where there is a difference between contradictions in an affidavit filed by a party and contradictions in the affidavits of the parties is that in the former, the court is not bound to call oral evidence as the contradictions are self-created, intra, and so not warranting the call of evidence to resolve the conflict. In the second case, it is a fight between the parties which the court will have to resort to evidence outside of the affidavits to resolve. See MOMAH V. VAB PETROLEUM INC (2000) 4 NWLR (PT. 654) P. 534 (at 547).

The reason for this principle is rooted in the permanent and indestructible nature of documentary evidence as against the oral evidence that comes out from the vocal cord of a man. In the process of using documentary evidence as a hanger, a witness whose evidence is buttressed by it is credited as a truthful witness and vice versa. While the evidence not supported by the available documents is taken as half-truth or untrue. See OGBE V. AJADE (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106; JINADU V. ESUROMBI-ARO (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 483) 1231; JOLASUN V. BAMGBOYE (2010) 18 NWLR (PT. 1225) 285; GOV. KWARA STATE V. NICON PLC (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 890) 732

Depositions in an Affidavit are supposed to be statement of facts of things of which the Deponent has personal knowledge of. A person does not need to be the Claimant or the Defendant in a suit, of any type, before he can depose to an affidavit of things he has personal knowledge of or communicated to him by another person he identifies fully in the affidavit, stating the circumstances, where and when that other person communicated the information to him, and confirms and adopts the information by stating that he believed that the facts so communicated to him are true. A person not the Claimant or Defendant but as witness in a case can through an affidavit, better referred as Witness Deposition or Witness Statement on Oath, testify of what relevant facts he knows about any particular issues in controversy in the suit, and so helps the court to do justice in the matter.

It will have no negative consequence on an affidavit where the deponent deposed to fact not within his personal knowledge as long as the facts are relevant and the name of his informant is stated. Also, reasonable particulars of the informant including the time, place, and circumstance of the information should be contained in the affidavit. Where this is not followed, then such information will amount to hearsay evidence, and the court is duty bound to strike out the offending paragraph or ignore the hearsay in determining the application. See SECTION 115 (4) EVIDENCE ACT 2011; BARCLAYS BANK V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA LTD. (1976) 1 ANLR (PT. 1) P. 409 (AT 420).

Yes, the practice of deposition to and the use of affidavit in court proceedings is set out in the Evidence Act, 2011: a) Every affidavit must contain only statement of facts and circumstances to which the witness deposes, either of his own personal knowledge or from information he received from another which he believed to be true; b) An affidavit shall not contain matters that are extraneous by way of objection, prayer or legal argument or conclusion; c) Where a person deposed to fact not within his knowledge but from other source, he shall set forth clearly the ground of his belief. Where the belief is derived from an informant, he shall state the name of the informant, the time, place and circumstance of the information. See section 115 Evidence Act 2011; ABIODUN V. C.J. KWARA STATE (2007) 18 NWLR (PT. 1065) 109 CA.

No, a mere conclusion which is a statement of fact within the knowledge of a deponent does not offend against the provision of section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. It is only offensive if it is a legal argument or a legal conclusion. See ORJI V. ZARIA IND. LTD. (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 216) 124 SC.

No, it is not in all cases that reference to a provision of law in an affidavit may involve legal argument so as to offend against section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Statements of facts merely setting out in an affidavit what is contained in a law do not offend against Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011; FAWEHINMI V. THE STATE (1990) 1 NWLR (PT. 127) P. 486 (AT 497).

You cannot make a general or sweeping denial which is not in keeping with the rules of pleadings as they apply clearly with affidavit evidence. Denial must be specific and when necessary particularized. It is not sufficient for the purpose of controverting depositions in an affidavit to make sweeping and general denial. See OKEREKE V. EJIOFOR (1996) 3 NWLR (PT. 434) P. 90 (AT 104); MACRON SERVICE (NIG) LTD. V. AFRO CONTINENTAL (1995) 2 NWLR (376) P. 201 (AT 212).

Where the court is faced with irreconcilable affidavits, the court to resolve such conflict properly is bound to first hear oral evidence from the deponent and his witness if any. However, where a close examination of the arguments presented on behalf of the parties reveals that the issue in dispute can be clearly resolved on ground of law, without necessarily hearing oral evidence, then such ground of law alone will suffice in resolving the dispute. See EHOLDGBIN V. OLUGHOR IN RE OTUEDON (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 392) P. 665 (690) P D-F

The court will only call oral evidence where the affidavit conflicts on material issues. The area of the conflict must be identified, it must be irreconcilable, it must be on crucial point which is relevant to the determination of the issue raised in the case. See OSHIKOYA V. OSHIKOYA (1990) 1 CCHCJ (PT. 5) P. 566 (AT 571); LAGOS STATE PROPERTY & DEVE. CORPORATION V. ADOLD STAMM INT. LTD. (2005) 2 NWLR (PT. 910) P. 603 (AT 617).

Where the paragraphs of an affidavit lacks evidential value or has some infractions, the court will not waste its time with such paragraphs, the court would either strike them out or where it does not do so, the court would attach no weight to them. See Josien Holding Ltd. & Ors. V. Lornamead Ltd & Anor. (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 371) 254; Ahmed V. CBN (2013) 5-7 MJSC (Pt. 1) 90.

It is mandatory for the deponent of an affidavit to state his informant and to the circumstance he got his information because failure to do this means it can neither be verified nor evaluated for credibility; that the supposed facts descends into the realm of rumour mongering or plain gossiping and of course infringing on Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Furthermore, not stating the informant and the circumstance the information is gotten puts the court in a difficult situation in ascertaining the veracity and the authenticity of facts alleged. This is because the court cannot utilize a careless talk or gossip without information of how it was derived to make an evaluation. See section 115 Evidence Act, 2011. Okoye & Anor. V. Centre Point Merchant Bank Ltd. (2008) 15 NWLR (pt. 1110) 335 (at 362); Ahmed V. CBN (2013) 5-7 MJSC (Pt. 1) 90.

Not just yet, signature by the deponent and the subsequent stamping of an affidavit by the person authorized by law to do so are some of the requirements. For such affidavit to be used in court, the original must first be in court so that it becomes part of the official record of the court. However, once an affidavit is filed in court, an original copy or office copy can be used in court. See Section 108 Evidence Act, 2011.Oparugo V. Oparugo (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1081) 574 CA.

The signature of the deponent or of the person making a document is a substantial requirement and not merely a requirement of form. It is the signature of the maker of a document that gives authenticity to that document. Where an affidavit does not contain the signature of the deponent, it cannot be relied on and it cannot be amended so that the signature is included. The defect is one of substance and not merely of form. See section 117 (4) Evidence Act, 2011; Ngun V. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 677) 684; Okoye V. Santili (1994) 4 SCN 1 (Pt. 2) 333

No, an affidavit deposed to before a Notary Public will not be one which is validly deposed to before a proper person authorized to do so where the Notary Public is the legal practitioner representing the deponent in a suit for which the affidavit is to be used as evidence. This is because, in the circumstance, the Notary Public is not one duly authorised to administer oath as it is self-induced, much like a judge presiding over own case. As such, the affidavit is not one which had been properly sworn. And where this is the case, the affidavit cannot be used as evidence because it is defective and cannot be regularized. See Section 112 Evidence Act, 2011; Buhari V. INEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 CA.

It depends. What is the defect? Is the defect one of substance or a defect of form? Where it is a defect in substance, then it cannot be regularized. For instance, an affidavit not signed by the deponent is a defect in substance and cannot be regularized. The court has no discretion to grant leave for it to be regularized. However, where the defect is one of form, not affecting the substance of the affidavit, then it can be regularized with the leave of the court. The court may even permit the affidavit to be used like that where it is a defect in form as long as the court is satisfied that it has been sworn before a person duly authorized to do so. See Section 113 Evidence Act, 2011; Buhari V. INEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 CA; NAL Merchant Bank Plc. V. Odeghe & Ass. Ltd. (2000) FWLR (Pt. 28) 2186 CA.

Where an affidavit does not contain the words “I solemnly make this statement on oath in good faith believing the content to the true and correct in accordance with the Oaths Act”. Such affidavit is defective not just in form but also in substance. It cannot be cured even with the leave of the court. Where there is however substantial compliance with the Oath Act, such an affidavit will not be incompetent merely because the exact words were not used. See Obumneke V. Sylvester (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 506) 1945 CA; Lonestar Drilling Nig. Ltd. V. Triveni Engineering & Industries & 9 Ors. (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 588) P. 622 (at 625-629).

An affidavit need not be deposed to an oath for it to be valid. In fact, deposing to an affidavit will not necessary need to be on oath in the following circumstances: 1. Where the person deposing to the affidavit affirms that the taking of any oath whatsoever is, according to his religious belief unlawful; 2. Where the person deposing to the affidavit is of immature age. However, the person before whom the declaration is made is expected to record in the attestation the reason of such declaration being taken without oath. See Section 120 Evidence Act, 2011

An affidavit having no date of swearing is not proper as it is defective. However, such defect is one of form and the court if satisfied that it was sworn before a person duly authorized may allow it to be used. See UBA Plc. V. Mode (Nig) Ltd. (2001) FWLR (Pt. 40) 1664 CA; Section 113 Evidence Act, 2011.

It is the date affixed by the Commissioner for Oath as the date of administering the oath/affirmation that is important to the law, not the date the deponent fixed on the document as the date he prepared the document before coming for the administration of the oath/ affirmation. Ayodeji v. Ajibola (2013) All FWLR (Pt.660) 1327 at p.1373, paras. A-B.

Yes. Where an affidavit proposed to be sworn is not clear or is difficult to read or where the person before whom the affidavit is to be sworn observed in his judgment that the affidavit is written in other to encourage fraudulent alteration, he may reject the affidavit and require it to be re-written in a better manner. Also, an affidavit altered after it had been sworn may be rejected and a fresh one required where the altered affidavit is brought to be re-sworn.

See section 117(2) and 118 Evidence Act 2011.

The legal effect of an invalid affidavit or an incompetent affidavit is that it lacks a binding effect. The court ought not to rely on an affidavit it had rightly declared invalid or incompetent to determine any issue. Such an affidavit ought to be disregarded. Ghraizi v. Graizi (2017) All FWLR (Pt.893) 1335 at p.1360, paras. E-F.

The Evidence Act, or any law in general applicable in Nigeria, does not derogate against a blind or illiterate person deposing to an affidavit. Where a person who is blind or illiterate deposes to an affidavit, such person is to mark the affidavit personally with his mark (for instance thumbprint). However, he must do this in the presence of the person before whom it is taken. In other to protect an illiterate and blind deponent of an affidavit, the fact that the deponent is blind or illiterate must be stated in the affidavit and such affidavit must be followed by a jurat.

See section 117(4) Evidence Act, 2011, Section 119 (1) Evidence Act, 2011. Section 42 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

Placing a jurat at the foot of the affidavit of the blind or illiterate deponent goes a long way towards protecting the deponent. In fact, the jurat contains the following: a) The date of the swearing and the place where it was sworn; b) It states that the affidavit was sworn before whom is authorized to do same; c) The affidavit shall state the fact that the deponent is illiterate or blind and that the content of the affidavit was read over to the illiterate or blind deponent and translated to the language he understands and that he appeared to understand it; d) Where the deponent makes a mark instead of signing, the jurat shall state so. Where an illiterate or blind person is alleged to have deposed to an affidavit, such deposition will not be binding on him where no jurat exists. See Section 119(2)(a-d) and (3) Evidence Act, 2011.

Of course, two or more persons who are illiterate can join together and depose to one affidavit, however the names of the deponents must be written in the jurat and it must appear in the jurat that each of them had been sworn to the truth of all the matters stated in the affidavit. See Lawal Osula V. UBA Plc. (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 813) 374 CA; Section 119(4) Evidence Act, 2011.

Affidavit evidence is not in the nature of pleadings. Although affidavit evidence is a statement of facts under oath, it need not be buttressed by oral evidence for it to be valid. Affidavit evidence once uncontroverted, non-contradictory and unchallenged can stand alone as evidence once it is admitted. Oral evidence will only be called where there are conflicts in the averment of affidavits. Altimate Investment Ltd. V. Castle & Cubicles Ltd.(2008) 5 CLRN 54.

The fact that some piece of evidence is admitted does not mean that it automatically has probative value. Evidence is admitted where it is uncontroverted and it is relevant. While admissibility is based on relevance, probative value depends not only on relevance but also on proof. Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue. See Action Congress of Nigeria V. Lamido (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 630) 1338; Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246 at 414.

It is improper for a party intending to rely on affidavit evidence to refuse to serve same on the opposing party. In fact, such evidence will not be admitted as it breaches the principle of fair hearing which is one of the twin pillars of natural justice. Every person appearing before a body, be it a court or a quasi-judicial or even an ordinary body and against whom a complaint was lodged, is entitled to have notification of the case against him and the date the matter is fixed for hearing.

See Babale V. Eze (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 635) 350.

Facts sworn to in an affidavit constitute evidence upon which the court can act in order to determine issue arising therefrom. Where a cause is contested on affidavit evidence, the court considers or views the deponent as witnesses. As a result, the court will then treat the affidavit as if it were the oral evidence of the witnesses supported by documentary exhibits, if any. A deponent will be seen as a truthful or as an unreliable and misleading witness. See Babale V. Eze (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 635) 329.

Where new facts are disclosed in a counter affidavit served on a party, and he intends to challenge same, he must do this by filing a FURTHER AFFIDAVIT challenging the new facts set out in the counter affidavit. See Duru V. Nwosu (1989) NWLR (Pt. 113) 24.Babale V. Eze (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 635) 330.

Where an affidavit deponent fails to file a further affidavit, the new facts disclosed in the counter affidavit are deemed not disputed, and a court of law and equity will deem same admitted. This is because where one party fails to call evidence on an issue, the evidence called by the other side ought to be believed and acted upon by the court. See Duru V. Nwosu (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 24;Globe Fishing Industries V. Coker (1990) 11 SCNJ 56; Babale V. Eze (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 635) 330.

Any affidavit sworn to in any country other than Nigeria can be used in court in Nigeria in all cases where the use of affidavit is necessary. However, the facts that a piece of paper looks like an affidavit does not by itself makes it valid for use in Nigeria. For it to be valid, there must be evidence that such affidavit sworn in the country not being Nigeria was sworn to before a Judge or a Magistrate or a Notary Public. The affidavit must be authenticated by the official seal of the court or the Notary Public. See section 110 Evidence Act, 2011.

Generally, an affidavit sworn to before an officer in the Nigeria embassy abroad is valid and can be relied on in court where affidavit evidence is needed. However, such affidavit must be sworn before a person so authorized. Also, an affidavit sworn at the High commission or consulate in a foreign country is valid. See section 110(b) Evidence Act, 2011.

Unfortunately, this is not easy meal that the court may just decide against swallowing. Where an affidavit evidence is brought before the court and such affidavit is regular or compliant on its face, the court would have no option than to admit it once uncontroverted. In fact, there will be prima facie evidence that an affidavit is properly sworn before an authorized person once the affidavit contains the authority or the seal and (or) signature of the Notary Public, the Judge, Magistrate, Commissioner for Oaths or any other persons so authorized. See Sections 112, 113 & 114 Evidence Act, 2011.

However, the above is a presumption that is rebuttable by evidence to the contrary. Once there is evidence that a deposition was not properly sworn, then such affidavit will have no effect and the court cannot rely on it. See Chidubem V. Ekenna (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 455) 1692 CA; Buhari V. INEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 CA.

The importance of affidavit for the service of court process cannot be undermined. It is the affidavit (usually called affidavit of service) that shows the proof that court process has been served on the other party as such the other party cannot claim ignorance of the of the suit against him. Under the rules of court which prescribed service of court process by a bailiff or other officer of the court, the following conditions are prescribed for proof of such service: a) There must be an affidavit of service sworn to by the bailiff or officer who effected the service; b) Such affidavit of service must be produced at the trial. See Babale V. Eze (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 635) 345.

An affidavit of service indicates that the necessary court process has been served. To challenge this presumption, a counter affidavit needs to be filed. An affidavit of service cannot be countered by oral argument. Failure to file a counter is fatal as it is deemed that service of court process is admitted. See Uko V. Ekpenyong (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 972) 70 (at 98).

As a matter of fact, you must. An affidavit not filed cannot be admissible in court. It is the filing that makes it an official record of the court and a court process. Furthermore, it is the filing fees that vest legitimacy or validity on the process.See Section 108 Evidence Act, 2011.Ayodeji V. Ajibola (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 660) 1345; Onwugbufor V. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.424) 252.

The relevant date of swearing an affidavit is the date affixed by the Commissioner for Oaths/Affirmation and this is the date that is important to law and not the date the deponent fixed on the document as the date he prepared the document before coming for the administration of the oath/affirmation. Ayodeji V. Ajibola (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 660) 1373

Where a court is to determine affidavit evidence before it, it is expected that community reading be given to all the paragraphs of the affidavit. That is, all the paragraphs of the affidavit should be read together and not in isolation. It is travesty of justice for a court of law to introduce or import what is not in the affidavit. See Ezeadukwa V. Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 635; Aigoro V. C.L & H. Kwara State (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 663) 2012.

The essence of a verifying affidavit under the Fundamental Right Enforcement Rules is to verify the facts in the statement of the applicant. Where such evidence in the verifying affidavit is not denied or sufficiently countered or controverted, the court is bound to rely on it and use it. See Oceanic Securities Int. Ltd. V. Balogun (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 643) 1903.

A court must resolve the conflict arising from an affidavit in the proper way and this is by oral or documentary evidence if necessary. The court cannot solve conflict arising from an affidavit based on assumptions, permutation or conjecture. Any decision reached by the court without calling evidence is erroneous and will be set aside on appeal. See First Inland Bank V. Effiong (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 638) 956 – 1957; Folabi V. Folabi (1976) NSCC 576; Atanda V. Olanrewaju (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 89) 394.

Absolutely. The court is duty bond to state its reasons or indicate its train of thought which led to its conclusion. This is necessary because where a trial court gives no reason for its conclusion or decision, it becomes impossible for an appellate court to determine on the face of it whether the trial court was right or wrong. See Nwosu V. Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 688; Onyedibe V. Maduekwe (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 630) 1371.

An affidavit is of massive importance for the conduct of a suit brought under the undefended list. In fact, trial under the undefended list procedure is conducted by affidavit evidence. Furthermore, where a defendant to a suit under the undefended list intends to raise a legal objection to a document filed by a Plaintiff in support of his case, such defendant is expected to raise such defence in a proposed statement of defence attached to the affidavit which is in support of his notice of intention to defend. See Ilorin East Local Govt. v. Alasinrin (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 645) 242 – 243; Bature V. Savannah Bank of Nig. Ltd. (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 546) 438.

In determining whether a party has disclosed a triable issue or defence on the merit under the undefended list procedure, the court usually looks at the affidavit in support of notice of intention to defend filed by the defendant. The affidavit will be sufficient as one showing triable issue where it reveals a difficult point of law, or that there is dispute as to facts which ought to be tried or that there is real dispute as to the amount due which requires the taking of any account to determine or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds to a bona fide defence. Nishizawa Ltd. V. Jethwani (1984) 12 SC 23; F.M.G V. Sani (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 147) 688;Ilorin East Local Govt. V. Alasinrin (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 645) 254