LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Reliefs Claimed – Requirement to Lead Evidence in Support of Reliefs
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The principle of law that evidence must be led to support averments in a statement of claim does not require a plaintiff to recite viva voce by heart in his testimony before the court each item of the reliefs he seeks in his statement of claim. A statement of claim may contain a variety of reliefs. The preparation of reliefs sought by a plaintiff is a function of the legal practitioner who settles the statement of claim from the brief he receives from his client. A plaintiff is not expected to know the niceties of the reliefs derivable from the totality of the facts he confides to his solicitor.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Jekpe & Anor v. Alokwe & Ors (2002) NLC-1111995(SC) at pp. 17–18; Paras A–A.
"The principle of law that evidence must be led to support averments in a statement of claim does not require a plaintiff to recite viva voce by heart in his testimony before the court each item of the reliefs he seeks in his statement of claim. A statement of claim may contain a variety of reliefs. The preparation of reliefs sought by a plaintiff is a function of the legal practitioner who settles the statement of claim from the brief he receives from his client. A plaintiff is not expected to know the niceties of the reliefs derivable from the totality of the facts he confides to his solicitor."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A plaintiff need not recite each relief verbatim in testimony. Reliefs are drafted by legal practitioners from client instructions. The plaintiff testifies to facts; the law derives reliefs from those facts. The requirement to lead evidence supporting averments does not require memorisation of reliefs. The court connects the evidence to the reliefs claimed. The plaintiff’s credibility is not undermined by inability to recite legal formulations. The principle recognises the division of labour between client (facts) and lawyer (legal reliefs). The court assesses whether the evidence supports the reliefs claimed, not whether the plaintiff can articulate them. Overly technical requirements would defeat access to justice.
