LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Evidence Going to No Issue
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When the evidence of a witness in court is different from the facts pleaded, or is contradictory to the facts pleaded, such evidence should be rejected; if an issue is relevant, it ought to have been pleaded.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"When the evidence of a witness in court is different from the facts pleaded, or is contradictory to the facts pleaded, such evidence should be rejected... [I]f the issue of caretakership is relevant, it ought to have been pleaded."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This reinforces Principles 299 and 321 on evidence-pleading alignment. Evidence departing from pleaded facts must be rejected because: it goes to no issue (no issue was raised by pleadings for this evidence to address), it surprises opponents (who prepared based on pleadings), and it violates fundamental pleading rules. Courts cannot: accept unpleaded evidence, base findings on matters outside pleadings, or allow parties to shift their cases through testimony. If issues are relevant to claims/defenses, parties must plead them—relevance doesn’t excuse failure to plead. For example, if caretakership (holding land temporarily for another) is the defense, it must be pleaded; testimony about caretakership without pleading it is inadmissible. The remedy: amend pleadings (if timely) to conform to evidence, or exclude evidence not conforming to pleadings. This strict rule enforces: fair notice through pleadings, issue definition, and prevention of trial by ambush. Parties must ensure pleadings comprehensively state their cases.