Pleading

A plaintiff must call evidence to support his pleadings and evidence which is in fact adduced which is contrary to his pleadings should never be admitted.

JAMES V. MID-MOTORS NIGERIA CO. LTD LGC(17/11/1978) L

In the National Investment & Properties Co. Ltd. case (supra) at p. 142 to 143 this court reiterated the supreme importance of adherence to pleadings in these words: "Now just as an appellant is bound by his grounds of appeal so at the earlier stage of the action both parties are bound by their pleadings and it is elementary that admissions in pleadings do not have to be proved. In so far as pleadings do not contain admissions then the matters alleged must be proved in evidence, but that evidence cannot derogate from the pleadings as Chief Akin Olugbade seems to us to think it could

JAMES V. MID-MOTORS NIGERIA CO. LTD LGC(17/11/1978) L

Pleadings should be sufficient, comprehensive and accurate. As has been stated by this court in Abimbola George and 2 ors. (Trading as Abimbola George and Sons) v. Dominion Flour Mills (by its Attorney, Leslie Howard) (1963) 1 All NLR 71 at 77, the aim of pleadings is to give notice of the case to be met, which enables either party to prepare his evidence and arguments upon the issues raised by the pleadings and saves the other side from being taken by surprise. It was pointed out in that case that, apart from anything else, this notice makes for economy since the parties must confine themselves only to the issues raised in the pleadings.

JAMES V. MID-MOTORS NIGERIA CO. LTD LGC(17/11/1978) L

Unfortunately, the testimonies, which he, [the appellant], adduced were so evidently contradictory and inconsistent that they could not establish that the said exhibit was the result sheet of a primary election, the conduct of which, was authorized by the National Working Committee of the second respondent as required by law. The effect is that these conflicting versions render his evidence very unreliable and untenable, C. D. C. (Nig.) Ltd v SCOA (Nig.) Ltd [2007] 6 NWLR (pt. 1030) 300. This must be so because such contradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness are disastrous; they, actually, have the effect of destroying the case of the plaintiff, Audu v Guta [2004] 4 NWLR (pt 864) 463.
As this Court held in National Investment Properties Co. Ltd v The Thompson Organization Ltd and Ors (1969) NMLR 99, 104:
A Plaintiff must call evidence in support of his pleadings and evidence which is in fact adduced, which is contrary to his pleadings, should never be admitted. It makes no difference that the other side did not object or that the Judge did not reject it. It is of course the duty of counsel to object to, in one word, inadmissible evidence; but if notwithstanding this, evidence is still, through oversight or otherwise admitted, then it is the duty of the Court when it comes to give judgment to treat the inadmissible evidence as if it had never been admitted.
The explanation for this prescription is simple: the standard of proof is on the preponderance of evidence.
Thus, where the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is contradictory, he would have failed to discharge the onus of proof on him, Yakubu v Jauroyel and Ors (2014) LPELR-22732 (SC) 69; E -G. That was the fate of the plaintiff's case at the trial Court. His case must, therefore, fail.