reasons required to justify it. Where a Plaintiff has proved its case, the Court will rely on the evidence put before it. The weakness of the defense will therefore be detrimental to the defendants. It is trite that where a party fails to put up a defense in a suit, it becomes fatal to its case. See FEMI FALANA & 1 OR V. REPUBLIC OF BENIN & 2 ORS ECW/CCJ/JUDL02/12 UNREPORTED Furthermore, the reasons adduced for seizure must be relevant and sufficient. It is not enough to state that the Plaintiff is out of time. The Defendant must prove that the reasons for the seizure have been justified by statute or that it was done in the interest of the public. General traverse without more is somewhat insufficient for the Court to tilt its reasoning to the side of the defence. While denials are necessary, they must be specific and not evasive. Matters that have a bearing on the principal question for determination certainly need specific traverse. The Defendant’s defense appears to be evasive as it failed to answer the points of substance. The court is not unmindful of the first paragraph of the defense i.e. the general traverse. However, in respect of essential and material allegations, such a general denial ought not to be adopted. Essential allegations should be specifically traversed. See WALLERSTEINER V. MOIR (1974) 1. WLR 991 at 1002, per Lord Denning M.R. In the determination of a case before a court, and in particular before this Court, the presentation of a case by the Plaintiff and reply by the Defendant is material 30