LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Admission of Facts — Effect of Failure to Properly Traverse Material Averments
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A defendant who refuses to admit an allegation must state so specifically; pleading that he is not in a position to admit or deny or that he will put the plaintiff to the strictest proof does not constitute a proper traverse.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Asafa Foods Factory Ltd. v. Alraine Nig. Ltd. & Anor (2002) NLC-511998(SC) at pp. 17–18; Paras D–A.
"Where a defendant refuses to admit a particular allegation in a statement of claim, he must state so specifically and he does not do this satisfactorily by pleading, as in the present case, that he is not in a position to admit or deny the particular allegations raised by the plaintiff and/or that he will, at the trial, put the plaintiff to the strictest proof thereof."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A defendant must specifically deny allegations they dispute. Vague pleadings such as “not in a position to admit or deny” or “put to strictest proof” do not constitute a proper traverse. Such evasive pleadings are treated as admissions. The principle ensures that parties clearly identify disputed facts. The opposing party is entitled to know what is contested. The rule prevents defendants from avoiding the consequences of admission. The court may treat unambiguously denied facts as in issue. The proper traverse is a clear denial. The principle is fundamental to pleading. The defendant must plead specifically to each allegation.
