“A deponent of an affidavit in any proceeding before a Court of law is a witness in the matter. Section 115 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 enjoins the deponent as a witness, to depose to facts in an affidavit that “either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true”. It is not enough to set out in the preamble paragraphs of an affidavit for the deponent to restate the facts that he has been authorized either by his principal or employer, and the client to make the affidavit; and that he derived the facts averred in the affidavit in the course of his employment and/or from his personal knowledge and/or information generally. For every assertion in a specific averment the deponent, consistent with Section 115 (1), (3) & (4) of the Evidence Act, must disclose with particulars his source of information and belief.
The counter-affidavit of Charles Jibuaku, Esq., a Legal Practitioner, is replete with obvious hearsay and unverifiable facts.
Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, for instance, avers “that private investigation reveals that the Applicant had secretly relinquished his interest in the res in favour of the deponent and/or other unknown persons, which fact is concealed from this Honourable Court but can be ascertained from the tenancy contracts and proof of payment of rent”. No tenancy contract or receipt for payment of rent was exhibited. The source of this information on which the weighty allegation is predicated remains a matter for conjecture. The averment, like many others in the counter-affidavit, is reckless, and offensive of the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act. Paragraph 3 thereof does not state how the deponent of the counter-affidavit comes to the bold assertion “that the deponent of the Applicant’s affidavit is a total stranger to this proceedings.” The averment does not seek to discharge the burden of proof laid on his shoulders by Sections 131 and 132 of Evidence Act that he who asserts any facts must prove that those facts exist inorder to succeed.
Upon reading the counter-affidavit, one gets the impression that it is tailored to meet an application for stay of execution of a judgment. There is no such prayer in the application. The quixotic counter-affidavit appears to substantially attack a phantom.”  Per EKO ,J.S.C in jimoh v. hon. minister federal capital territory & ors (2018) LPELR-46329(SC)  (Pp. 10-12 paras. A-A)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close Search Window