"In Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, pleading is defined as a formal document in which a party to a legal proceeding (especially in a civil lawsuit), sets forth or responds to allegations, claims, denials or defence.
In summary, it consists of the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's answer. The essence of pleadings is to compel the parties to define accurately and precisely the issues upon which the case is to be contested to avoid element of surprise by either party. It is also essential that parties are not allowed to adduce evidence which goes outside the facts pleaded. See Onwuka & Anor V. Omogui (1992) LPELR - 2719 (SC), (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 230) 393, Adenuga V. Odumeru (2001) LPELR - 130 (SC), (2001) 2 NWLR (pt 696) 184.
One other essence of pleading is that it must be precise and accurate on the issues to be decided by the Court such that no party or Court is left in doubt as to what each party requests from the Court. In the circumstance, parties are usually confined to their pleadings. Put differently, parties are bound by their pleadings. The law is trite that litigation is fought on pleadings of the parties and no party will be allowed to go outside the pleadings to make a case different from that which he had pleaded. At the hearing, no litigant would be permitted to set up a case which is different from that set forth in his pleadings. See Onuoha Nwokorobia V. Desmond Uchechi Nwogu & Ors (2009) LPELR-2127 (SC), (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt.1150) 553, Clifford Osuji V. Nkemjika Ekeocha (2009) LPELR-2816 (SC), (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt.1166) 81.
In the instant case, there is no doubt that the appellant's evidence led at the trial Court was at variance with the pleaded facts in his statement of claim. This much was stated by the Court below. On page 103 of the record of appeal, the lower Court said as follows:- "As I said, parties are bound by their pleadings, and the respondent in this case pleaded in its statement of claim that it is entitled to 1,400 cartons of star beer and 2,100 cartons of Gulder beer by the appellant, and it prayed the lower Court to compel the appellant to supply said number of cartons of beer to it, even as it very well knew that the appellant had already supplied it with 1,272 cartons of Gulder beer and 1,050 cartons of star beer."
Even the learned trial Judge in his judgment agreed that the appellant herein abandoned his pleadings and led evidence on unpleaded facts. Because of this, the learned trial Judge said thus on page 26 of the record.: "It is my firm belief that it is undesirable to give effect to the rules of pleadings which will enable one party to score a victory not on the merits of the case." Then on page 28 of the record, which is the conclusion of the judgment, the learned trial Judge said: "In sum I rule that the plaintiff has proved the claim on this evidence tendered and do hereby give the plaintiff judgment as claimed in his evidence; not as in the pleadings." (italics mine for emphasis)."
It can be clearly seen as was rightly held by the Court of Appeal that the moment the learned trial Judge expressed the undesirability of the rules of pleadings in civil cases, he had derailed. I would rather state that rules of pleadings in civil proceedings are desirable. This is so because, litigation is fought on the pleadings. They are the pillars upon which a party's case is founded. It cannot be otherwise. The law is trite that it is not open to a party to depart from his pleadings and to put up a different case not contemplated by the other party. It is equally not open to the Court as was done by the learned trial judge in this case, to depart from the case pleaded by the parties and to found its judgment on matters which are neither pleaded nor constitute issues as settled in the pleadings.
I agree with the Court below that the trial Court was wrong when it held that it gave judgment to the plaintiff "as claimed in his evidence, not as in the pleadings". If this is allowed to stand, it will breed confusion and anarchy in civil proceedings. Rules of pleadings not only give the other party notice of the case he is to meet at the trial, they also define the parameters of the case. As I said earlier, parties are bound by their pleadings.
It is trite that any evidence led on facts not pleaded goes to no issue while any pleadings in respect of which no evidence is led are deemed abandoned. See Chukwuemeka Anyafulu & Ors V. Maduegbuna Meka & Ors (2014) LPELR - 22336 (SC); (2014) 7 NWLR (pt. 1406) 396; Adesanya v. Otuewu & Ors (1993) LPELR - 145 (SC), (1993) 1 NWLR (pt.270) 414, Asani Sogunro & Ors. v. Aremu Yeku & Ors (2017) LPELR-41905 (SC). I quite agree with the Court below when it held on page 103 of the record of appeal that: "In civil actions tried on pleadings, the parties and the Court are bound by their pleadings filed in the case; they are certainly not allowed to set up cases different from their pleadings.
The pleadings in an action determine and control the way and manner the trial of an action will succeed or fail, and to that end, parties must limit themselves severally to the issues raised in their pleadings, as evidence of facts not pleaded or contrary to facts pleaded is inadmissible and goes to no issue." What baffles me in this case is that the appellant, at the time it filed the case at the trial Court knew very well that the respondent had supplied it with 1,272 cartons of Gulder beer and 1,050 cartons of star beer and yet it demanded to be supplied with 1,400 cartons of star beer and 2,100 cartons of Gulder beer. Moreso, even when the respondent herein filed its statement of defence denying liability and stating clearly that it had supplied the appellant with the products as stated above, the appellant made no attempt to amend its statement of claim but merely admitted in evidence that he had been supplied as stated by the respondent and as held by the Court below, it strengthened the case of the respondent.
It was wrong for the trial Court to shove aside the pleadings of the parties to give judgment on the evidence only. That evidence was based on nothing. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand, it will crumble. See Macfoy V. UAC (1962) AC, 152. On the whole, I accept the position taken by the Court below which was largely to restate and apply the time honoured principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings. No party is allowed to abandon his pleadings and thereafter lead evidence at large. This is unacceptable."
Per OKORO, J.S.C. IN C. N. OKPALA & SONS LTD v. NB PLC CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43826(SC)
