“It is imperative to observe, pronto, that the record, the bedrock of the appeal, revealed that the appellants were duly served with all the processes encompassed in the respondent's application. Curiously, the appellants, in their infinite wisdom, failed to file a counter-affidavit or any process to neutralise the critical averments in the application. Put simply, the appellants starved the lower Court of any evidence refuting the allegations levelled against them. In essence, the crucial averments in the respondent's affidavit were not controverted. In [the] eyes of the law, those pungent depositions remained unchallenged. The law grants the Court the unfettered liberty to act on unchallenged affidavit, see Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 545; Uzodinma v. Izunaso (No.2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30; Eyiboh v. Abia (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1325) 51; Tukur v. Uba (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1343) 90; Inegbedion v. SeloOjemen (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 211; Danladi v. Dangiri (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1442) 124; APC v. INEC (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1462) 531; Ezechukwu v. Onwuka (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 539; Owuru v. Adigwu (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 1.

The caustic effect of the appellants' costly neglect is plain. They failed to deflate the respondent's claim of ownership of the Toyota bus. In the mind of the law, in the absence of a counteraffidavit, the appellants admitted in toto all the respondent's assertions inclusive of his ownership of the Toyota bus. What is admitted does not need further proof. In the presence of the undiluted admission, the lower Court paid due allegiance to the law when it granted the respondent's reliefs relating to the seized Toyota bus.” 

Lagos State University & Anor v. Taiwo Adegboyega Ganiyu (2022) LPELR-56873(CA) at 24-26, paras. DA, per Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JCA (as he then was, now, JSC)