ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY IN UGANDA

LAW OF EVIDENCE COURSE WORK BY MADAM BUSHIRA YEAR 3

GROUP FOUR (4)

NAME REGISTRATION NUMBER

1. KATEU ANTHONY 122-053012-28830

2. WOLIMBWA WINTRAMASS 121-053012-24384

3. NEJESA GRACE 120-053011-21317

4. AUJO FAITH 122-053012-26547

5. AWINO JUSTINE 122-053012-27362

6. KATENYA GEORGE 122-053013-28461

7. WABUYI JACKSON 119-053012-19980

8. CHEPTOEK MARION 122-053012-28326

9. MWOTIL ALEX 122-053012-26068

10. NABUDUWA JOANITAH 121-053011-26202

11. ODONG JOHN BOSCO 122-053012-26724

12.
ADMISSIONS

The expression "admission" means to voluntarily acknowledge the existence or the truth of a particular
fact. However, the Evidence Act provides for broader meaning in terms of evidence.

To admit is where one side of the case agrees that something (an assertion) the other party has alleged
is true.

The Evidence Act CAP 8 defines admissions as "a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and in the
circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

According to the Blacks' Law Dictionary, admissions is the avowal of a fact or of circumstances from
which guilt may be inferred but only tending to prove the offense charged and not amounting to a
confession."

It can also be understood as a statement made by a defendant of the fact or facts pertinent to issues
tending, in connection with proof of other facts or circumstances to prove the guilt but which itself is
insufficient to secure a conviction.

Phipson on Evidence, defines an admission in civil cases as statements made out of court by parties to
proceedings and they are admissible as against but not in favor of such a party to prove the truth of the
facts stated.

CATEGORIES OF ADMISSIONS

There are three categories of admissions as explained below:1)

Formal or judicial admission:

These are admissions that are made by a party during or before the proceedings of the case. For
example, statements were given by a party to a case in front of the Magistrate during the proceedings.
They are sometimes referred to as extra-judicial admissions.

These are receivable against the maker as a waiver of proof, and when brought to the attention of the
court, judgment can be entered against the party who made the admissions or on whose behalf they
were made.

Formal admissions in criminal cases were not generally permissible but with an exception for a plea of
guilty by which the accused admits the material averments in the indictment against him.

In civil cases, formal admissions may be made voluntarily or in response to notice by the opposing party
who expects to be relieved of proving some facts by the answer obtained, in pleadings, in answer to
notice to admit on the discovery, in answer to interrogatories, in correspondence between the solicitors
to the parties or by advocates.
Formal admissions are made to dispense with proof and such admissions in the litigation are treated as
conclusive proof of facts in issue or relevant facts admitted.

2) Informal and Casual admission:

These are admissions made casually in the ignorance of the possibility that they may be used in any
subsequent litigation where they are relevant. These admissions do not appear on the records of the
case.

For example, if an accused of murder, sustained injuries and during his treatment, he told the reason for
injury to the doctor.

The said explanation is regarded as an admission but informal. Informal admissions may be made by a
party to the litigation or by some person having an identity of interest with him or by a witness who is
not a party.

It is important to note that such statements containing an admission have to be tendered in full and if
the statement contains some parts which are favorable to the maker and those against his case, they
may as well be used as admissions, provided that the entire statement is taken into account when
analyzing the evidence.

Such statements should be proved by the party alleging they were made, thus their mere presentation is
inadequate.

3) Admission by conduct: These are made by the conduct of a person. For example, if a person during
the informal interrogation by the police runs away from that place, this conduct of that person is said to
be an admission by conduct.

NATURE OF ADMISSIONS

According to The Evidence Act CAP 8 under Section 16, an admission can either be oral i.e. answers
made to interrogatories, or documentary i.e. sworn in affidavits.

Furthermore, In Re Cohen [1924] 2 Ch. 515, it was held that admissions can be declarations in wills,
recitals, and descriptions in agreements, receipts, accounts, passbooks, and maps among others.

1. Direct admissions.

These are admissions that are plain and clear In Momayi v. Hatim and another it was stated that
"admissions have to be plain and obvious, as plain as a pikestaff and clearly readable because they must
result in judgment being entered.

The Evidence Act CAP 8 under, Section 17 illustrates these direct admissions where it states that;

(1) Statements made by a party to the proceeding or by an agent of any such party, whom the court
regards, in the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him or her to make
them, are admissions.
(2) Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions,
unless they were made while the party making them held that character.

(3) Statements made by-

(a) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, and
who make the statement in their character of persons so interested; or for example, business partners.

(b) Persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the
suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the
statements. For example, administrators of an estate making an admission in the course of still being an
administrator.

2. Indirect Admissions.

It can also be termed as admissions by conduct. This may take the form of action or silence for example
in, Bessela v Sterm (1877) 2 C.P.D 265 the plaintiff was proved to have said to the defendant that he
always promised to marry her but he did not keep his words and the court of appeal found silence to
answer the charge to amount to admission.

They are illustrated in the Evidence Act CAP 8 under Section 18 which provides for Admissions by
persons whose positions must be proved against party to the suit. Statements made by persons whose
position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit are admissions, if those
statements would be relevant as against those persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit
brought by or against them, and if they are made while the person making them occupies such position
or is subject to such liability.

EXAMPLE;

Alex buys a car from David, with Emma guaranteeing the payment. Alex defaults on payment, and David
sues both Alex and Emma.

Liability:

- Alex (principal debtor) is primarily liable for the debt.

- Emma (guarantor) is secondarily liable, having guaranteed Alex's payment.

Statements as Admissions:

Statements made by Alex (e.g., acknowledging the debt) are admissible against Emma, as they are
jointly and severally liable.

Emma's statements (e.g., confirming the guarantee) can also be used against Alex.
Joint and Several Liability:

To prove the debt against Emma, David must first establish the debt against Alex. Since they are jointly
and severally liable, statements made by Alex can be used as evidence against Emma.

3. Incidental admissions. These are made by people involved in the admission of some other fact.

They are illustrated by The Evidence Act CAP 8 under Section 19 which provides for Admissions by
persons expressly referred to by party to suit. Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit
has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.

Example 2: in a suit of David vs. Sophia

Sophia refers to Olivia for information regarding the proof of any fact or fact in issue.

_Facts:

- Sophia and Olivia are business partners.

- David claims Sophia and Olivia owe him money.

- Sophia's defense relies on Olivia's knowledge of financial transactions.

_Statements as Admissions:_

- Olivia's statements (e.g., confirming transactions) become admissible as admissions against Sophia.

- Sophia's statements (e.g., acknowledging partnership) can also be used against Olivia.

ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSIONS.

The general rule is that admissions may only be proof against the person who makes it or his
representative, and not on his behalf. Alternatively, one can say admissions are admissible against the
party who makes them and they should not be in favor of the party who makes them.

The Evidence Act CAP 8 illustrates this rule under Section 20 which provides for Proof of admissions
against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.

Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his or her
representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or
by his or her representative in interest, except in the following cases-

(a) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that
if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 30 ;

(b) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement
of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when that
state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable;
(c) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than
as an admission.

Furthermore, in Hegge v Edmonds (1855) 125, a mother had made statements that could have been
received as evidence of her adultery if she had been sued personally. It was held that the admissions
could not be received in proceedings brought against her as an administrator of her late husband's
estate, in which proceeding the legitimacy of her child was an issue.

This general rule is justified on grounds that persons other than the maker of an admission ought not to
be bound by it.In R v Turner [1910]1 KB 346, Phipson J stated that the general rule on admissions in
both civil and criminal matters is that any relevant statement made by a party is evidence against
himself. If a declaration is made in favor of the party that makes it, then such a declaration is not
receivable as an admission. In Slattery v Pooley, it was held by Lord Parker that whatever a party says is
evidence against himself and what a party admits to being true may be presumed to be so.

However, there are exceptions to this general rule as discussed below; 1. Where the statement is made
by an adverse party for example statements made in the Sworn Affidavits served upon the adverse
party.

2. If the statements are made in presence of an adverse party who does not deny them.

3. If it is permitted by the law, for example, in the law of taxation, the assessment of tax is made based
on returns paid by the taxpayer. In case the taxpayer is challenged, the tax records can be used as
evidence in court in their favor.

4. If it is in the case of public accounts, they can be presented by the public officers concerned.

5. If the statements are contemporaneous writings, they can be used by the party themselves.

6. Where the documents are tendered in not as evidence but as original documents. When a statement
contains items favorable to a party's case in addition to the admission, the party relying on the latter
cannot prevent the other items from being proved.

In Harrison v Turner (1847) 10 Q.B 482 It was stated that the debit side of an account may be tendered
as an admission against one party, but this will mean that the credit side may be treated as evidence
against his opponent.

7. When it is of such a nature that if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between
third persons.

8. When it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue,
made at or about the time when that state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct
rendering its falsehood improbable.
For example, if Jane is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen and he offers to
prove that he refused to sell them below their value, he may prove these statements even if they are in
his favor because they explain the state of mind and conduct influenced by facts in issue.

REASONS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSIONS.

1) Admission as a waiver of proof, If a party has admitted a fact, it dispenses with the necessity of
proving that fact against him. It operates as a waiver of proof.

2) They are statements against interest:

Admissions are self-harming., No one puts his own head on the guillotine, thus as a presumption, if one
makes an admission, such declarations are probably true being a statement against the interest of the
maker. Admissions are considered to be true since it is highly doubtful that a person will voluntarily
make any false statement against his interest. It's the best evidence In Slattertc v Pooley, it was settled
that whatever party says is evidence against himself, what a party admits to be true may be presumed
to be so.

3) Admission act as evidence of contradictory statements, another reason that partly accounts for the
relevancy of admission is that they help to cure the contradiction between the party's statement and his
case. For example, A sues B for the wrongful possession of land but the land paper shows that C, the
father of A, has given B the right to reside on that land.

This statement in the land paper is an admission on his part as it contradicts his case against B. But this
is only partly true, for the principle is the party can prove all his opponent's statements about the facts
of the case and they do not need to be inconsistent with his case.

4) Admissions may be an exception to the rule against hearsay,

Admissions by one party can be presented by the opposite party in a suit to prove existence of a given
fact. For example, if Sabagabo admits that Obura owes him 10 m , but Sabagabo says he has paid 5 m ,
and later he tells Vicent that he is not willing to pay the other 5 m to Obura. Vicent informs Obura who
uses this as evidence against Sabagabo. Obura did not hear it directly from Sabagabo, but he has been
told by Vicent who directly heard from Sabagabo. This is an admission that proves Sabagabo's intention
of not paying Obura. Since hearsay evidence is inadmissible, the admissibility of Vicent's statement
against Sabagabo becomes an exception to the general rule in hearsay evidence.

5) Admissions act as evidence of the truth, The last and most important and widely accepted reason
that accounts for the relevancy of admission is that whatever statement a party makes about the fact of
the case, whether they be for or against his interest, should be relevant as a representation or reflecting
the truth as against him. In Slatlerle V. Pooley, Parke B observed that whatever a party says in evidence
against himself, what a party admits to being true may be presumed to be so.
WHO CAN MAKE AN ADMISSION?

1. A party to proceedings. As per section 17(1) of the Evidence Act, statements made by a party to
proceedings are admissions.

2. An agent to a party to the proceedings. As per section 17(1), such an agent must be expressly or
impliedly authorized by that party to make such statements for them to be considered as admissions,
Agents as per Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules may include, a recognized agent, advocates duly
appointed or people with powers of attorney.

3. Parties to suits suing or being sued as representatives. In civil matters, one can appoint a
representative to sue on his or her behalf. As per section 17(2), statements of such people are
admissions provided they are made while the party making them holds the position as a representative,

4. Any person who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceedings.
These may include, business partners, parties to joint ownership, and beneficiaries to trust among
others. As per section 17(3), any statement made by such a person is an admission provided it is made
by the person in his character as a person with an interest.

A statement made by such a person is an admission if they are made during the continuance of the
interest of the person.

5. Any person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the
suit. E.g. the old man who transferred the disputed land

6. Any person who is expressly or impliedly referred to by a party to the suit can also make an
admission.

According to section 19 "Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly
referred for information about a matter in dispute are admissions." For example, where there is a
question as to whether A delivered goods to B. B says that if C, the taxi driver, would say that he
delivered the goods would pay for them. The admission by C that he delivered the goods would be
received in evidence against B a party to the suit who referred to C.

TO WHOM CAN ADMISSIONS BE MADE?

The law does not specify to whom an admission can be made. However, statements made to oneself are
merely soliloquies.

If the admission is made to a wife or a lawyer it is receivable if it is proved by a third party. For a
lawyer's admission to bind the client, it must have been specifically to the adversary party.

PROOF OF ADMISSIONS.

As per Section 20 of the Evidence Act CAP 8, admissions are relevant and may be proved against the
person who makes them, or his or her representative in interest, but they cannot be proved by or on
behalf of the person who makes them or by his or her representative in interest, except in the following
cases;

1. When it is of such a nature that if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between
third persons.

2. When it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue,
made at or about the time when that state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct
rendering its falsehood improbable.

3. If it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

RELEVANCE OF ADMISSIONS.

The weight of admissions depends on circumstances under which they were made. The Evidence Act
CAP 8 gives the process of proving admissions made by persons themselves or on their behalf. As a pre-
condition, there are specific instances where admissions can be considered by the court and be provable
against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest.

The Evidence Act CAP 8 under Section 20 provides that an admission may be proved by or on behalf of a
person making it if such an admission would have been relevant between third parties if such person
who made it had died.

The section makes reference to s.30 which deals with people who cannot be called as witnesses,
including dead people.

Section 20 also provides that such statements can also be proved when they consist of a statement
which refers to the existence of any state of mind or body relevant, or in issue when that statement was
made at a time when the state of mind or body existed and following which, certain events or conduct
occurred which bring the statement's truthfulness in doubt.

For example, if there were letters showing one's insanity and later, the person acts sanely, later those
documents can be admitted to prove that one was sane. The section also provides that such statements
are provable if they are relevant in any other way than by way of admissions. Common law has added
more exceptions to the rule that one is not required to prove admissions made by them.

Admissions, unless amounting to estoppels, can be challenged by the party against whom they are
brought in evidence as being untrue.

The following circumstances elaborate the relevance of different admissions made under the various
circumstances.

1. Statements made without prejudice. The without prejudice (WP) rule will generally prevent
statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute, whether made orally or in writing,
from being put before the court as evidence of admissions against the interests of the party which made
them.
The without prejudice rule encourages parties (or potential parties) to litigation to settle their disputes
out of court. The rationale is that settlement discussions will be facilitated if parties are able to speak
freely, secure in the knowledge that what they have said and, in particular, any admissions which they
might have made to try to settle the matter, may not be used against them should the settlement
discussions fail.

The Evidence Act CAP 8 under Section 22 supports this by providing that in civil cases, an admission
made under an express condition or intention that it should not be allowed in evidence or if from the
circumstances of the case, the parties agreed as such, then it should not be admitted as evidence.

Exceptions to the statements made without prejudice.

The case of Ofulue and another vs Bossert provides explanations to the exception of the without
prejudice rule

.i. When the issue is whether without prejudice communications have resulted in a compromise
agreement being reached, When the issue is whether the agreement apparently concluded as a result of
the without prejudice negations should be set aside on the ground of misrepresentation, fraud or undue
influence;

iii. When the issue is whether an estoppel has arisen due to a clear statement which was made by one
party to the without prejudice negotiations and on which the other party is intended to rely or act, and
does in fact rely or act, to their detriment (even where no concluded settlement arises)

A party may be allowed to give evidence of what the other said or wrote in without prejudice
negotiations if the without prejudice Rule which excludes said evidence would act as a cloak for perjury,
blackmail or other "unambiguous impropriety"-in the clearest cases of abuse of the privilege. Evidence
of negotiations may be given in order to explain delay or apparent acquiescence2.

Admissions made under compulsion or coercion.

In a civil trial, there is legal compulsion and an admission made under compulsion is admissible for
example. a witness may answer to interrogatories and the evidence got out of the interrogatories would
be admissible both in the case where the interrogatories have been conducted and in subsequent civil
trials.

This also applies to admissions made during testimony where the speaker or his lawyer had objected to
the question being asked or the answer given by the speaker at the time might have been irrelevant or
the witness was prevented from fully explaining the statement. All this notwithstanding, the statement
can be used at a future trial as an admission. When admitting statements, the whole statement must be
taken, including hearsay and opinion evidence.

It must be noted though that the general rule on weighting of hearsay and opinion evidence is that it is
not admissible.3. Oral admissions. Section 21 of the Evidence Act CAP 8 effects that oral admissions as to
the contents of documents are not relevant unless the party proves that he is authorized by the law i.e.
where one is required to give secondary evidence if it made in attestation of the document, and where
the genuineness of the document is in question.

The above is based on the parole evidence rule which states that documentary evidence is the best
piece of evidence since it speaks for itself therefore there is no need for one to prove the contents of
the documents when they are clear:

To add on, a party's admissions out of court being primary evidence against him are receivable to prove
the contents of a document without notice to produce or explain the absence of the originals of such
documents. Similarly, oral admissions as to the contents of such a document may be relevant in certain
situations. )

However, for such to be relevant, the following should be adhered to.1. The inference must be
unambiguous. The Supreme Court in the case of India in Chikham Koteswara Rao v. C. Subbarao, gave
some guidance in respect of the clarity and unambiguity of the inference stating that;

i. Before the right of the party can be taken to be defeated based on an alleged admission by him, the
implication of the statement made by him must be clear and conclusive.

ii. There should not be any doubt or ambiguity. iii. It would be necessary to read all of his statements
together. It was stated that the Court must examine the statement inside out and before holding a party
to his statement must see that statement is unequivocal and comprehensive.

For Example- The mere admission by a person that he put his thumb impression or signature upon a
piece of paper without knowing its nature and contents is not admissible by him that he executed the
documents.

2. The admission must be adopted as a whole. In Zarina v Noshir [1963] E. Sir Ronald Sinclair stated that
"the general rule is that admissions by a party to a proceeding are admissible against him, but not in
favor of such party, to prove the truth of the fact stated. but when an admission is tendered against a
party, he is entitled to have proved as part of his adversary's case, so much of the whole statement or
document containing the admission, as is necessary to explain the admission although such other parts
may be favorable to himself.

And it is usual practice to tender the whole statement or document containing the admission."4.
Ambiguous admissions

.Where the facts admitted are capable of two different interpretations, both of which being equally
possible, it will then be up to the court to decide which of the two meanings is taken. However, for court
to give judgment for an admission, the admission must be unequivocal.

NOTICE AND JUDGEMENT OF ADMISSIONS IN CIVIL CASES.

This means that notice should be given to the adverse party. Under Order 13 Rule 6 of Civil Procedure
Rules, Any party may at any stage of a suit, where an admission of facts has been made, either on the
pleadings or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon the admission he or she
may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties;
and the court may upon the application make such order, or give such judgment, as the court may think
just.

Section 28 clarifies that admissions are not conclusive but can operate as estoppel, preventing a party
from contradicting their earlier admission in certain circumstances.These sections work together to
ensure that admissions are used appropriately in civil cases, balancing fairness and reliability in
evidence.

Ram Narain v. Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd. (1955) 2 SCR 483 (India)

Ram Narain, the plaintiff, claimed damages from Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd. for breach of
contract. During discovery, the company's managing director admitted in writing that the contract
existed. Later, the company denied the contract's existence.Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the managing director's earlier admission was conclusive evidence against
the company, preventing them from denying the contract's existence. The court applied Section 28 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows admissions to operate as estoppel.

Example:

Suppose John sues Emily for unpaid rent. During mediation, Emily admits in writing that she occupied
John's property from January to March. Later, Emily claims she never occupied the property.

Application of Section 28:

Under Section 28, Emily's earlier admission operates as estoppel, preventing her from contradicting it.
The court may consider her admission conclusive evidence of her occupancy, supporting John's claim.

This case law example demonstrates how Section 28 ensures fairness and reliability in civil cases by
preventing parties from contradicting their earlier admissions.

.References

The 1995 constitution of Uganda

The Evidence Act Cap 8

The Registration of Persons Act 2015

Phipson, Law of Evidence