Formal Admissions

Chapter 26 of Principles of Evidence.

Chapter 7 of Law of Evidence.
Introduction
• An admission is the confirmation of an adverse fact.
• The general rule is that all relevant facts must be proved based on evidence presented
by the parties.
• However, there are several exceptions to this rule.
• Evidence need not be adduced to prove a fact where a formal admission is made by
one of the parties or where the court takes judicial notice of a fact.
• Where one party admits a fact, the opposing party need not adduce evidence on the
admitted fact.
• When a party makes an admission then the admission constitutes sufficient proof of
every fact which it covers.
• A formal admission is made by a litigant or his representative with the object of
removing the admitted fact from the issues to be adjudicated, so that evidence about it
becomes unnecessary.
• The purpose of a formal admission is to shorten the proceedings by relieving the
opponent of the necessity of proving a fact.
• The maker must intend the admission to be an admission of
a fact which she does not wish to dispute.
• an admission made during counsel’s address will not
ordinarily constitute a formal admission.
• A formal admission is binding on the maker only in respect of
the proceedings at which it is made.
• A formal admission made in terms of s 220 is not binding on
a co-accused.
• An admission may be made expressly or by implication.
• If a statement in the pleadings is in any way ambiguous it
must therefore be interpreted not to constitute an admission.
• The court does have the power to have the admission
withdrawn on request.
Formal admissions are different from
informal admissions.
Informal
Made out of court.
Can lead contradicting evidence.
Weight varies from one to another.
Not necessarily binding as can be contradicted
May give rise to more issues in dispute.
Formal
Made in court.
Generally cannot be withdrawn nor contradicted.
Constitutes conclusive proof.
Binding on the maker.
Narrows down issues in dispute.
Civil Proceedings
• The admission can be made in the pleadings or at the trial.
• Section 15 of the CPEA – It shall not be necessary for any party in any civil
proceedings to prove, nor shall it be competent for any such party to disprove any fact
admitted on the record of such proceedings.
• In terms of section 15 an admission may not be disproved while it appears on the
record.
• Rule 22(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court requires the defendant in his plea “either [to]
admit or deny or confess and avoid all material facts alleged” by his adversary.
• Rule 22(3) – “[e]very allegation of fact in the combined summons or declaration which
is not stated in the plea to be denied or to be admitted, shall be deemed to be
admitted”.
Withdrawal of a formal admission
• S v Daniels and Another - in both civil and criminal cases the court has a discretion to
relieve a party from the consequences of a formal admission made in error.
• PresidentVersekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Moodley amendments involving a withdrawal of an
admission should be treated on the same basis as all other amendments.
• Before a civil litigant will be granted leave to amend its pleadings it must establish:
• A bona fide mistake was made, and
• The amendment will not cause prejudice to the other side which cannot be cured
by a cost order.
• Once a formal admission has been withdrawn it is no longer binding on the maker.
Procedure for withdrawal.
• A party can present oral evidence or an affidavit to satisfy the requirements set out in
the previous paragraph.
• Brummund v Brummund's Estate –
• “the applicant was obliged to give a full and satisfactory explanation on affidavit as to how the admissions
came to be made and, if they were made in error, to apply formally for their withdrawal. It was insufficient
to instruct counsel to state from the Bar that a mistake had been made and that the admissions would be
ignored.”
Criminal Proceedings.
• At common law the defence was unable to make any formal admissions.
• But the State could bind itself through a formal admission.
• Section 220 of the CPA provides that an accused or her legal adviser or the state may in criminal
proceedings admit any fact placed in issue at such proceedings and any such admission shall be
sufficient proof of such fact.
• S v Seleke en 'n Ander –
• an admission made in terms of s 220 of the CPA has the effect that the accused cannot later allege that what she
admitted must still be proved by the state.
• “sufficient proof” does not amount to “conclusive proof” and can later be rebutted by the accused, for example, on the
grounds of duress or mistake or by other legally acceptable facts.
• S v Sesetse en 'n Ander -
• A formal admission still standing at the end of the trial becomes “conclusive proof” in respect of the fact to which the
admission has reference.

• When the accused makes a formal admission in the usual course of the proceedings (in terms of
section 220, not via section 115) the state has a choice whether to accept it.
• If, for some reason, the state does not accept it, the admission is not included in the record and
the accused cannot insist that it be so included.
• S v Mdladla – It’s necessary that formal admissions be meticulously and unequivocally
made to obviate any doubt or misunderstanding as to which matters thereafter remain
in dispute.
• An unrepresented accused should be warned by the court that she is under no
obligation to make a formal admission.
• The maker of a formal admission need not necessarily have personal knowledge of the
facts which he is prepared to admit.
• S v W - assertions which amount to admissions, and which are deliberately and
specifically made by the cross-examiner during her cross-examination require no
formal proof before they may be used against the party concerned. It would seem as if
this type of admission should for all practical purposes be treated as a formal
admission.
Withdrawal of a formal admission.
• S v Van der Westhuizen - process for withdrawing an admission:
• “[T]he minimum that an accused, who wishes to lead evidence or advance an
argument inconsistent with a formal admission in terms of s 220, would first
have to show . . . is that there is an explanation, consistent with bona fides,
why the admission was made in the first place; and why he or she now wishes
to resile from it . . . a court will not in a criminal matter close its eyes and ears
to the truth and convict an accused based on an admission where the
admission is clearly wrong.”