Introduction
Across Nigerian jurisprudence, one consistent theme appears in both civil and criminal proceedings: courts act only on evidence properly placed before them. When a defendant fails to defend a claim, refuses to appear, or declines to adduce evidence, the legal consequences can be decisive. Although the standards of proof differ between civil and criminal trials, the underlying principles about unchallenged evidence, abandoned pleadings, and the duty to put forward a defence exhibit strong parallels.
In civil matters, MATA v. KANO STATE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS & ANTI CORRUPTION COMMISSION & ANOR (2023) LPELR-60503(CA) underscores that pleadings are lifeless without evidence. ….“Pleadings, by their nature and character, cannot speak. They speak through witnesses and as long as a party refuses or fails to call witnesses to articulate their content, they remain dormant… and no Court of law is competent to resuscitate or revive them.”…. Per TOBI, JSC in Durosaro Vs Ayorinde (2005) LPELR – 967 SC, cited with approval. The Court applied this principle to uphold a default judgment, noting that uncontested facts are deemed admitted.
A similar stance appears in GARUBA & ORS V. OMOREGIE (2025) LPELR-81463(CA), where the Court found that the failure to answer a Statement of Claim leaves the pleadings admitted by default. Citing OKE & ORS. V. AIYEDUN (1986) LPELR-2427(SC), the Court affirmed that a trial court may enter judgment without hearing evidence—except in relation to damages—when material averments are not denied.
In IGP & ORS v. ADEMOLA (2014) LPELR-23230(CA),the Court emphasized that an unanswered Statement of Claim is taken as admitted. The principle is reinforced in NEWBREED ORGANISATION LTD v. ERHOMOSELE (2006) LPELR-1984(SC), where ….“minimum evidence adduced by the other side would suffice to prove its case”…. when the opposing party calls no evidence. This theme resurfaces in NWANKWO v. EZEUKO & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81052(CA): unchallenged evidence requires only minimal proof.
While these decisions arise from civil litigation, they echo a deeper procedural truth that runs into criminal proceedings as well:
evidence must be confronted and tested, or it may stand against the silent party.
This parallel becomes clearer when examined from the criminal angle. In OLALEYE V. STATE OF LAGOS (2024) LPELR-80010(CA), the Court reiterated the long-standing position from AIGBADION VS. STATE (2000) LPELR – 264 (SC) that ….“Any defence put up by an accused person whatsoever whether stupid or spurious must be investigated thoroughly in order to render it false or unlikely.”…. Per JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, but the accused who raises a defence—no matter how feeble—must have that defence considered and tested.
Where the accused raises no defence at all, the Court evaluates the prosecution’s case solely on the evidence before it. The principle from the civil sphere, (that evidence not challenged is often taken as admitted), appears in criminal cases in a modified but recognizable form. If incriminating evidence goes unchallenged, and the prosecution’s case is not shaken under cross-examination, the Court may accept such evidence as establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot rely on silence or inaction to defeat direct, credible evidence properly before the Court.
Conversely, when the accused raises a defence, however slight, the Court must interrogate it; this is the safeguard created by the higher standard of proof in criminal law. The civil courts, by contrast, do not investigate on behalf of parties. The burden of putting up a defence rests squarely on the defendant, and failure to do so leaves the claimant’s case effectively uncontested.
By placing these decisions side by side, the distinction and correlation become clearer. Civil courts treat silence as admission. Criminal courts treat silence as waiver of challenge but not as confirmation of guilt; rather, it strengthens the evidential weight of the prosecution’s uncontroverted testimony. Both systems, however, converge on one point: the litigant who refuses to engage with the evidence risks an outcome determined solely by what the other side has placed before the Court.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Cases discussed are referenced solely to illustrate judicial reasoning. For guidance on specific matters, please seek advice from a qualified legal practitioner.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.