CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Non-traversal of averments — Effect
Ratio Decidendi
Per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, in Salzgitter Stahl GmbH v. Tunji Dosumu Industries Limited (2010) NLC-123-30-2001(SC) at p. 11, para. D – p. 12, para. A:
"A fact not specifically traversed is presumed admitted. The defendant has not joined issue with the plaintiff on the discrepancies in the averments in paragraph 3 and 4 of the Amended Statement of Claim the crux of the issue in this case and upon which the lower court has relied to refuse the effects of exhibit G as an account stated. Indeed, as found by the trial Court and I agree with it that no attempt has been made in the Statement of Defence to plead specifically in answer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Amended Statement of Claim. I find that the averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Statement of Claim have not been traversed by the defence and are presumed admitted; otherwise it would amount to defeating the object of pleading — to settle the issues upon which the case between the parties is to be contested."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a fact not specifically traversed in pleadings is presumed admitted. The principle applies where a party fails to join issue on material averments. It ensures that issues are properly joined. The principle reflects the purpose of pleadings to define the issues. It prevents parties from avoiding material facts by silence. The court may treat untraversed facts as admitted. The principle provides guidance on the effect of non-traversal of averments.