Affidavit (53)
HELD:
"The issue regarding the non-calling of oral evidence to resolve purported or alleged conflicting affidavit evidence in a fundamental right proceeding, was considered recently by this Court in its unreported decision delivered on 12/7/2018 in APPEAL NO:CA/OW/175/2014 - UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC & ANOR. V. MR. IZUKA JOHNSON.
HELD:
"In the affidavit in support of the application for leave to reopen their case, the Appellants, inter alia, deposed as follows in paragraphs 13, 14 and 16:
HELD:
"The position of the Law is that where facts deposed to in an affidavit have not been controverted such facts must be taken as true.
HELD:
"The Respondent categorically and materially denied any dispute resolution by the elders, see paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Counter affidavit by the Respondent.
HELD:
''where the substantive application for interlocutory injunction is heard, there is bound to be conflicting affidavits. In such a situation, it is settled that the trial court, must call for oral evidence where the issue will be resolved..'' See GROUP DANONE & ANOR V. VOLTIC (NIGERIA) LIMITED (2008) LPELR-1341(SC)Per MUHAMMAD, JSC. (P. 44, Paras. F-G)
HELD:
"It is trite law that an affidavit of Service sworn to by a Bailiff or Sheriff or such other authorized Officer of the Court below shall be a prima facie evidence of proof of service of the process on the person deposed to have been served.
HELD:
"In the adjudication process a Court of law, before whom parties had placed affidavit and documentary evidence, can and is always clothed with the power to evaluate, appraise parties' affidavit evidence and to use documentary evidence were available, in order to resolve any conflict and prefer one party's evidence to the other party on the basis of probability.
HELD:
"It is trite law that where there is no counter affidavit to rebut the facts in a supporting affidavit to an application, the depositions in the supporting affidavit are deemed admitted.
HELD:
"The initial affidavit of service deposed to by the bailiff clearly showed on its face that service was not effected in the manner stated in the order of Court.
HELD:
"Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides for the presumption of regularity of official acts. It provides thus; "(1) Where any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with."
