In the circumstances of this case and by his silence or lack of protest at these proceedings, the Plaintiff had manifested his adoption of Abeebange’s admission of 1st Defendant’s title and cannot be permitted to assert otherwise. Section 119 (b) of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323), permits such testimony to be admissible when offered against such a person. Moreover, by his conduct the Plaintiff is bound by Abeebange’s admission within the intendment of section 26 of the Evidence Act,1975 (NRCD 323). The binding nature of this admission is based on estoppel by conduct and not estoppel per res judicata, which in my view, would have among others, required a valid and binding arbitral award.
An admission in law generally refers to a statement, oral or written (expressed or implied) which is made by a party or his agent to a civil proceeding and which statement is adverse to his case. It is admissible as evidence against the maker as the truth of the fact asserted in the statement. It is generally presumed that no man would declare or accept anything against himself unless it was true. Consequently, unless explanations are given which satisfy the Court that the admission should not be so regarded, due weight is given to it as such. Mostly, the admitting party is rendered bound by it unless it was sufficiently explained away.
The clear position of the law is that where an adversary has admitted the fact advantageous to the cause of a party, the party does not need any better evidence of estoppel by conduct. It is a rule whereby a party is precluded from denying the existence of some state of facts formally asserted. That type of proof is salutary of evidence based on common sense and expediency
