Deemed admission on failure to answer a request to admit
The Subrules (2) and (3) create a specie of admission that is referred to as “deemed admission” (or adoptive admission). That is conceptually different from a direct or express admission of a fact or authenticity of a document. There is deemed admission where a party either fails to adequately traverse an allegation or where, as here, the party on whom a notice to admit is served, fails to respond to the notice in accordance with the prescription of the rules.
By its very nature therefore, an admission where well-made, facilitates resolution of issues in proceedings. It takes away the obligation to prove a fact in issue. It thus narrows the controversy in the case, obviates the presentation of potentially long evidence and thereby shortens or expedites the trial. It is for this procedural utility that the rules allow a party to serve notice on the adversary to admit the truth of a fact or the authenticity of a document.
It is always important to recognize that the purpose of the rule is to simplify trials by eliminating matters about which there is no real controversy. The rule was never intended to be used as a demand upon a Plaintiff or Defendant to admit that it had no cause of action or good defence.
Request to admit facts already denied in the pleadings
It cannot be a legal proposition worthy of prescription that parties are at liberty to issue request to admit facts where the same facts have been specifically and openly denied in the pleadings in a manner that sets the stage for a full-blown trial. Such course will cause distortion in the judicial process and subject it to ridicule. Mostly, it raises questions about the bonafides of the requesting party to formulate questions about matters which have already been denied in the existing pleadings. Whilst, in terms of the rule, parties may issue request to admit facts at any time (See ARMAH VRS ADDOQUAYE supra), sound judicial practice and fairness to judicial process require that questions are formulated with due regard to matters specifically pleaded or denied on record. And where the request culminates in an application for judgment on admission, it becomes the bounden duty of the court to consider all the facts on record to make a determination which is just. And in matters of this, one case cannot be regarded as an absolute precedent for another.
Whether a deemed admission must be clear and unequivocal
Clarity of admission must be required in every case where a party applies to the Court to enter judgment on admission. Whilst it is the case that the authorities on clarity of admission as a requirement for judgment on admission have mostly arisen in cases of direct admission instead of deemed admission, there is no reason why a deemed admission must not meet the requirement of clarity and unequivocation. The reason is plainly this; by the application for judgment on admission, the applicant is asking the Court to be excused from proving anything on the issue because the fact is admitted. Such applicant has the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine controversy about the material fact and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
