"Further, let me observe that admission is a concession or voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of certain facts; a statement made by a party of the existence of a fact which is relevant to the cause of his adversary; a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action. Vockie v. General Motors Corp. Chevrolet Division D.C. Pa. 66 FRD 57, 60 (Black Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 47)." MR. KWASI KARIKARI ADUSEI & ANOR. V. MR. TOYIN ADEBAYO(2012) LPELR-7844(SC) Per FABIYI. J.S.C. (P. 25, paras. A-C) 

"It is said that: "Justice is the inflexible guardian of the public safety and being inflexible regards nothing but the facts whereas equity will consider motives and intentions and modify its decisions accordingly. All that law declares is just. It belongs to equity to temper the rigour of its decrees". See Advanced Law Lexicon Vol. 2D - 1 Reprint 2009 page 1628." MR. KWASI KARIKARI ADUSEI & ANOR. V. MR. TOYIN ADEBAYO(2012) LPELR-7844(SC) Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (P. 21, paras. C-E) 

"It is mandatory for the trial Court to give Counsel for the parties the opportunity to address the issue before entering an order for non-suit. See Craig v. Craig (1966) 1 All NLR 173; Akpakuna v. Nzeka (1983) 2 SCNLR 1." MR. KWASI KARIKARI ADUSEI & ANOR. V. MR. TOYIN ADEBAYO(2012) LPELR-7844(SC)Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (Pp. 14-15, paras. G-A) 

"In Adeyemi Ogunnaike v. Taiwo Ojayemi (1987) 3 SC 213 at 247, this Court per Kawu, JSC held: "Now an admission is a statement, oral or written (expressed or implied) which is made by a party to civil proceedings and which statement is adverse to his case. It is admissible as evidence against the maker as the truth of the fact asserted in the statement. See Seismograph Service s Nig. Ltd. v. Chief Keke Ogbenegweke Eyuafe (1976) 9 & 10 SC 135 at 146." MR. KWASI KARIKARI ADUSEI & ANOR. V. MR. TOYIN ADEBAYO(2012) LPELR-7844(SC) Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (P. 17, paras. A-C) 

"On admissions, this Court held: "Another principle deeply enshrined in our jurisprudence is that admissions made do not require to be proved for the simple reason, among 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." See Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu v. Dr. Edwin Onwudiwe & Ors (1984) 2 SC 15 at 38 per Aniagolu, JSC." MR. KWASI KARIKARI ADUSEI & ANOR. V. MR. TOYIN ADEBAYO(2012) LPELR-7844(SC)Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (Pp. 16-17, paras. F-A) 

"It is trite that a crucial fact which is admitted needs no further proof and same would be taken as established. See: Agbanebo v. U.B.N. Ltd (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 666) 534 at 549; Edopolo & Co. Ltd. v. Ohenhen (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 358) 511 at 519." MR. KWASI KARIKARI ADUSEI & ANOR. V. MR. TOYIN ADEBAYO(2012) LPELR-7844(SC) Per FABIYI. J.S.C. (Pp. 24-25, paras. G-A) 

"I must comment on the Court of Appeal's discountenancing the cross-appeal on the ground that having made the earlier findings and conclusion of setting aside the trial Court's orders, the cross-appeal became academic.

"Courts are not set up to engage its precious judicial time in academic exercise. In Salik v Idris & Ors (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1429) 36, (2014) LPELR - 22909 (SC) at pages 39 - 40 paragraphs F - C, this Court made it clear that:- "When a Judge restrains himself from deciding issues in a case or the whole case because his effort would amount to an academic exercise, all that his Lordship is saying is that if he decides the suit it would end with a hallow victory. A victory with no value whatsoever. A victory that cannot be enforced.

"The grouse of the appellant in the other issue is that the Court below relied on Rule 4 of the Companies Winding Up Rules alone to void the ex - parte orders granted by the trial Court without considering other relevant laws and decisions. If the appellant understands the resolution of issue 2(B) just determined, there would be no need to go into this issue. This is what the appellant says in paragraphs 4.29, 4.30 and 4.31, at page 18 of his brief of argument.

"On the next issue for consideration which relates to the trial Court's refusal to discharge the ex-parte orders for various reasons as it did not accept the respondent's submission that the orders were inappropriately made on a matter for winding up which affected a third party thereby creating a miscarriage of justice. The Court below went against that trial Court's decision and reversed the situation setting aside the injunctive interim orders.