PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

A party alleging forgery must plead it specifically with particulars and prove it; a finding of forgery without proper pleading and proof is perverse.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Adenle v. Olude (2002) NLC-1341998(SC) at pp. 5–6; Paras D–A.
"The burden was on the defendant who introduced the element of forgery to plead it specifically with particulars and prove it: see Jules v. Ajani (1980) 12 NSCC 222. However, by believing the evidence of D.W.1, the learned trial Judge accepted the implication that D.W.1's signature in Exhibit C was forged. That was perverse finding upon the state of the pleadings and evidence. That the learned trial Judge even admitted such evidence of forgery was an unfortunate lapse because on the authorities it went to no issue."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Forgery is a serious allegation requiring specific pleading with particulars. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The court cannot make a finding of forgery without proper pleading and proof. Evidence of forgery without supporting pleadings goes to no issue. The principle protects against unsubstantiated allegations. The defendant must clearly state the facts constituting the alleged forgery. The standard of proof for forgery is higher than ordinary civil standard (though not beyond reasonable doubt). The court will not infer forgery from mere suspicion. The rule ensures that the opposing party has notice of the allegation and opportunity to respond.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE

None recorded.