5 passages from 1 case, grouped by point of law. Each passage is in the court's own words and links to the place in the judgment.
Open in the Research toolOrder 23 Rule 6 subrule (2) allows a party to apply to the Court by motion for judgment on admission without waiting for the determination of any question between the parties and the Court may make such order as is just. But the hackneyed principle is that the admission must be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal.
EDWIN ANSAH HORTHMAN VRS MASAUD ABUBAKAR CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/23/2025 [2026] SLR (SC) 23 · Supreme Court · 2026 · ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC
Read it in the judgmentThe fundamental point to note in determining this appeal is that the jurisdiction to enter judgment on admission pursuant to Order 23 rule 6(2) is discretionary. See LACANSHIRE WELDERS LTD VRS HARLAND & WOLF [150]2 ALL ER 1096 at 1097. A party has no automatic right to it. The power rests with the court to exercise, doubtlessly upon the circumstances of each case.
EDWIN ANSAH HORTHMAN VRS MASAUD ABUBAKAR CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/23/2025 [2026] SLR (SC) 23 · Supreme Court · 2026 · ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC
Read it in the judgmentThe Court in exercise of its discretion ought to be satisfied even in the absence of answers to the request to admit that, on the record available including the pleadings, no controversy hangs around the material facts and that the applicant is entitled to such judgment. Such controversy could occur where, as in this case, there is deemed admission by reason of default to answer the request, yet there is a specific denial of the substance of the Plaintiff’s case. One must be mindful of the language of the rule requiring that the Court makes “the order as is just”. We believe a judgment will not be just if it was entered in the face of cogent outstanding issues or where the matters involved were not fit for judgment on admission.
EDWIN ANSAH HORTHMAN VRS MASAUD ABUBAKAR CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/23/2025 [2026] SLR (SC) 23 · Supreme Court · 2026 · ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC
Read it in the judgmentWe therefore hold that there were serious issues involved in the case which could not be conveniently determined on a motion. The judgment on admission entered by the trial Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal left in the trail of the suit, pending issues that went to the root of the claim. We also think that by the state of the pleadings, the deemed admission for the Defendant’s default did not pass the test of clarity and unequivocation required for the invocation of the rule to enter judgment on admission. Again, we expect it to have dawned on the lower Courts that the formulation of the questions in the Plaintiff’s request around many of the matters which had been specifically denied in the pleadings cast a serious doubt on the bonafides of the Plaintiff in proceeding to issue the request. This was capable of robbing him of any merit to the exercise of the discretion vested in the Court under the rule.
EDWIN ANSAH HORTHMAN VRS MASAUD ABUBAKAR CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/23/2025 [2026] SLR (SC) 23 · Supreme Court · 2026 · ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC
Read it in the judgmentEven where the admission is clear unambiguous and unequivocal, judgment is not automatic. The Court must still ensure that the judgment or order is fair and just and that there will be no pending issues that go to the root of the matter.
EDWIN ANSAH HORTHMAN VRS MASAUD ABUBAKAR CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/23/2025 [2026] SLR (SC) 23 · Supreme Court · 2026 · ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC
Read it in the judgmentSearch and filter these passages in the Research toolAll areas of lawSearch every judgment
Passages are quoted word for word from the judgments. Read the full judgment before relying on a passage.
