Admissions in Evidence Law: Formal, Informal and by Conduct

A defendant files a statement of defence in a land dispute. In paragraph four, he admits that the plaintiff has been farming on the disputed land since 1998 but says this was done with his permission. That admission, buried in a pleading, can be powerful. The plaintiff no longer needs to prove years of possession. The defendant has conceded it. The dispute narrows to whether the plaintiff’s occupation was permissive or adverse.

This is an admission at work. It is one of the most significant concepts in Nigerian evidence law because it directly reduces what the opposing party must prove, and once made correctly, it may be impossible to resile from.

This article explains what an admission is, who can make one, what forms it takes, and critically, what its limits are.

What is an Admission?

Section 20 of the Evidence Act 2011 defines an admission as a statement, oral or documentary, or conduct, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons and in the circumstances mentioned in sections 20 to 27 of the Act.¹

Three elements emerge from this definition. First, an admission may be made in words, written or spoken, or by conduct. A nod, a payment without protest, a failure to deny when denial was natural, these can all be admissions. Second, the statement or conduct must suggest an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact. It need not directly state the fact. It is enough that a reasonable inference points in that direction. Third, the admission must be made by a person covered by sections 20 to 27 and in circumstances those sections recognise.

The courts have expanded on this definition. In John Davids Construction Ltd v Riacus Co Ltd,² the court held that an admission is a statement, oral or documentary, made by a party which suggests an inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact. An admission is the best evidence against the party making it because it is a concession against their own interest.

In Odubawo v FSDH Securities Ltd,³ the court held that an admission is a voluntary acknowledgement of the existence of certain facts that are inconsistent with the party’s claim in the action. An admitted fact does not need any further proof.

Who Can Make an Admission?

Sections 20 to 27 identify the persons whose statements qualify as admissions.

A party to the proceedings can make an admission under section 21(1). This is the most straightforward case. What a plaintiff or defendant says about the facts of the case is admissible against them as an admission.

Agents of a party can make admissions binding on their principal under section 21(1). In Kirkstal Brewery Co v Furness Railway Co,⁴ the court applied this principle. The agent must be acting within the scope of their authority for the admission to bind the principal.

Counsel of the party can make admissions. In Festus L Adewunmi v Plastex Nig Ltd,⁵ the court held that counsel’s admission is binding on their client. A concession made by counsel during argument or in written pleadings binds the client.

A person sued or suing in a representative capacity can make admissions under section 21(2). An executor suing on behalf of an estate, or a trustee defending on behalf of beneficiaries, can make admissions that bind the parties in interest.

A person with a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter can make admissions under section 21(3). In Olawore v Olarenwaju⁶ and Ajuwa v Odili,⁷ the courts applied this provision.

A person from whom a party derives their interest can make admissions under section 21(3)(b). In Ojiegbe v Okwaranyia,⁸ the court applied this.

A person whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against a party can make admissions under section 22. And a person expressly referred to by a party for information can make admissions binding on that party under section 23.

Formal and Informal Admissions

The most important classification of admissions for examination purposes is between formal and informal admissions.

Formal Admissions

Formal admissions are admissions made in the pleadings or through formal procedural mechanisms in civil cases. They are governed by section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011, which provides that facts admitted in civil proceedings need not be proved.

A formal admission is made in one of four ways. It can be made in the pleadings themselves, where a defendant admits specific allegations in the statement of claim. Under Order 15 Rule 1 of the Oyo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2010, admissions can be made in pleadings. It can be made through answers to interrogatories, which are binding on the maker under Order 26 of the Oyo State Rules. It can be made through a notice to admit under Order 19. And it can be made by agreement between the parties.

Admission by counsel is binding on the client. In AG Nasarawa v AG Plateau,⁹ the court confirmed that facts may be admitted before the hearing, during the hearing, or in writing. In Odusanya v Osinleye,¹⁰ an admission made in a pleading was held to be a formal admission.

The defining characteristics of a formal admission are that it applies only to civil proceedings, and that it is binding and cannot be varied without leave of court. A party who makes a formal admission is held to it. In Bamiro v SCOA,¹¹ the court held that a party may withdraw an admission at any time before judgment, but this requires the court’s permission, and the court will not lightly allow a party to resile from a clear formal admission that the other side has relied upon.

Informal Admissions

Informal admissions are admissions made outside the formal pleading process, orally or in writing, in the course of dealings or proceedings. They are governed by section 21 of the Evidence Act 2011 and apply to both civil and criminal cases.

In FRN v Iweka,¹² the court confirmed that informal admissions are extrajudicial and may be made orally or in writing. In criminal proceedings, a statement made by the accused to a police officer that implicates them in the offence charged is an informal admission. A letter written by a party to another acknowledging a debt is an informal admission.

The key differences from formal admissions are these: informal admissions apply to both civil and criminal cases, they can be denied or explained by the maker, and they are not automatically binding in the same way as formal admissions. Their evidential value is assessed by the court in all the circumstances.

Conduct as Admission

Section 20 specifically recognises conduct as a possible form of admission. Conduct that suggests an inference about a fact in issue can amount to an admission even without words.

The most commonly discussed forms of admission by conduct are flight after a crime (suggesting consciousness of guilt), failure to deny an allegation when denial would be natural, making a payment in settlement of a claim (suggesting the debt is owed), and destroying documents relevant to a pending claim.

However, conduct admissions must be treated with caution. In R v Whitehead¹³ and R v Leckey,¹⁴ the courts held that silence does not necessarily mean admission. A person may remain silent for many reasons, including advice from counsel, fear, or misunderstanding. The court must consider all the circumstances before inferring an admission from silence.

In Din v African Newspaper Ltd,¹⁵ the court held that an admission may be implied when the alleged party fails to deny an allegation, but again the circumstances must be carefully examined.

In criminal proceedings, the right to silence under section 36(11) of the 1999 Constitution means that an accused who remains silent cannot have an admission inferred from that silence alone. The constitutional right to remain silent would be rendered meaningless if silence were treated as an implied admission of guilt.

Characteristics of a Valid Admission

Not every concession or acknowledgement qualifies as a valid admission. The courts have identified the characteristics that an admission must have to carry evidential weight.

In John Davids Construction Ltd v Riacus Co Ltd,² the court held that an admission must be clear, unequivocal, definite, and devoid of any iota of conjecture or speculation. In Blessing v FRN,¹⁶ the court held that an admission must be precise, concise, definite, unequivocal, full, clear, and unambiguous, and must have been freely made by the party.

In Ezekwesile v Onwuegbu,¹⁷ the court held that a person who admits to something they know nothing about attracts no evidential value. An admission must be based on the maker’s knowledge of the facts they are acknowledging.

In NNSC v Savannah Ltd,¹⁸ the court held that an admission of liability where there is no liability in fact amounts to nothing. The courts are cautious about treating admissions made in circumstances where the maker lacked knowledge or understanding of what they were admitting.

Are Admissions Conclusive?

This is one of the most important points and one that students most often get wrong.

Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Section 27 of the Evidence Act 2011 makes this clear: admissions may operate as estoppel but they are not by themselves conclusive. In Obi-Adu v Duke,¹⁹ the court confirmed that admissions under sections 20 to 27 are not conclusive proof of the matter admitted.

What this means in practice is that a court is not compelled to accept an admission as the final truth of the matter. The court may look at all the evidence and determine that the admission was made under a mistaken belief, was not fully informed, or does not accurately reflect the true position. The admission remains relevant and carries significant weight, but the court retains the power to assess it.

However, formal admissions in civil proceedings operate more strictly. A formal admission made in pleadings relieves the other party of the need to prove the admitted fact, and the court will generally not go behind it without very good reason.

Admissions can operate as estoppel under sections 169 to 174 of the Evidence Act 2011, which prevents the party who made the admission from later taking a position inconsistent with it. We examine estoppel in the dedicated article on estoppel in Nigerian evidence law.

A party who wishes to explain an admission may do so. In Yabola Ltd v Trade Bank PLC,²⁰ the court held that a party is entitled to explain an admission they have made. The explanation goes to the weight the court gives to the admission, but it does not automatically remove its evidential value.

Admissions Distinguished from Confessions

Every confession is an admission, but not every admission is a confession.

A confession is an admission made by a person charged with a crime that states or suggests the inference that they committed that crime. Section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011 defines a confession in these terms. A confession is governed by the stricter rules in sections 28 to 32 of the Act, including the voluntariness requirement.

An admission is a broader concept. It covers any statement by a party that suggests an inference about a fact in issue or relevant fact. An admission made in civil proceedings about a contractual obligation, or an admission made by a defendant in a land case about the plaintiff’s prior possession, are admissions but not confessions.

We examine confessions in full in the article on confessions under the Evidence Act 2011.

A Quick Reference Table

Key Cases

John Davids Construction Ltd v Riacus Co Ltd The court held that an admission must be clear, unequivocal, and definite. An admission is the best evidence against the party making it as it is a concession against their own interest.

AG Nasarawa v AG Plateau (2012) LPELR-7823(SC) The Supreme Court confirmed that facts may be admitted before, during, or after the hearing, in writing or by rule of pleadings.

Bamiro v SCOA The court held that a party may withdraw an admission at any time before judgment, but this requires leave of court.

Obi-Adu v Duke The court confirmed that admissions under sections 20 to 27 of the Evidence Act are not conclusive proof of the matter admitted.

FRN v Iweka (2011) LPELR-1296(SC) The court confirmed that informal admissions are extrajudicial and may be made orally or in writing, applying to both civil and criminal proceedings.

Blessing v FRN The court held that the test for admissibility of oral or documentary evidence is relevance, and admissions must be precise, unequivocal and freely made.

Problem Question Framework

When a problem question involves a statement or conduct by a party, apply this framework.

First, identify the statement or conduct. Is it oral? Written? Conduct? All three can constitute admissions.

Second, check whether it suggests an inference about a fact in issue or relevant fact in the proceedings. If it does, it may be an admission.

Third, identify the maker. Do they fall within sections 21 to 23? Are they a party, an agent acting within authority, counsel, a representative, or an interested person? If not, the statement is not an admission in the technical sense.

Fourth, classify the admission. Is it formal (made in pleadings or through formal procedure in a civil case) or informal (extrajudicial, civil or criminal)?

Fifth, determine its effect. A formal admission relieves the opposing party of proving the admitted fact. An informal admission is relevant and carries weight but can be denied or explained.

Sixth, consider whether it is conclusive. Under section 27, admissions are not conclusive. But formal admissions in civil proceedings are binding without court leave to resile.

Seventh, consider whether the admission could operate as estoppel under sections 169 to 174, preventing the maker from taking an inconsistent position.

Common Student Mistakes

The first mistake is treating admissions as conclusive proof. They are not. Section 27 is clear on this. Admissions may operate as estoppel, but they are not absolute proof.

The second mistake is confusing formal and informal admissions. Formal admissions apply only in civil cases and are binding. Informal admissions apply to civil and criminal cases and can be denied or explained. The distinction matters for how the court treats the admission.

The third mistake is treating silence as automatically amounting to an admission. It does not. The courts have been careful to say that silence, depending on circumstances, may or may not amount to an admission. In criminal cases, the right to silence under section 36(11) of the 1999 Constitution means silence cannot be treated as an implied admission.

The fourth mistake is confusing admissions with confessions. Every confession is an admission, but not every admission is a confession. A confession is an admission by a person charged with a crime that suggests they committed that crime, and it is subject to the stricter voluntariness rules in sections 28 to 32.

The fifth mistake is failing to identify the maker’s authority. Only persons within sections 21 to 23 can make admissions. A statement by a stranger to the proceedings, however relevant, is not an admission.

---

Footnotes

¹ Evidence Act 2011, s 20.

² John Davids Construction Ltd v Riacus Co Ltd (unreported).

³ Odubawo v FSDH Securities Ltd (2009) LPELR-2354(SC).

⁴ Kirkstal Brewery Co v Furness Railway Co (1878) 9 Ch D 535.

⁵ Festus L Adewunmi v Plastex Nig Ltd (unreported).

⁶ Olawore v Olarenwaju (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 450) 570.

⁷ Ajuwa v Odili (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 710.

⁸ Ojiegbe v Okwaranyia (1961) 1 All NLR 294.

⁹ AG Nasarawa v AG Plateau (2012) LPELR-7823(SC).

¹⁰ Odusanya v Osinleye (2013) LPELR-22035(CA).

¹¹ Bamiro v SCOA (unreported).

¹² FRN v Iweka (2011) LPELR-1296(SC).

¹³ R v Whitehead (1929) 1 KB 99.

¹⁴ R v Leckey (1944) KB 80.

¹⁵ Din v African Newspaper Ltd (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) 392.

¹⁶ Blessing v FRN (2015) LPELR-24740(SC).

¹⁷ Ezekwesile v Onwuegbu (unreported).

¹⁸ NNSC v Savannah Ltd (unreported).

¹⁹ Obi-Adu v Duke (unreported).

²⁰ Yabola Ltd v Trade Bank PLC (unreported).