STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ESTIMATE OF REPAIRS DOES NOT SUFFER FROM INADMISSIBILITY (DUE TO BEING AN INTERESTED PERSON)

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

This Court has held that estimate of repairs though made during the pendency of the suit does not suffer from the disability of S.91(3) of the Evidence Act because the maker of the estimate was not an interested party in the suit. An interested party contemplated in the exclusion of evidence or disqualification therefore is a person who is interested in the outcome of the litigation. See IGBINOVIA v. AGBOIFO (2002) FWLR (Pt. 103) 505 at 517, OWENA BANK PLC, v. CHIEF OLATUNJI and ORS. (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 529 at 591. The overriding raison d’etre of the legislation in my humble view is that the Courts would not allow a person interested to cook up a statement during the pendency of a suit or its anticipation in order to defeat the course of justice. In UGWU v. ARARUME (2007) 6 SCNJ Pg.316 at 354 – 355, the Supreme Court held that even though PDP was not a party in the proceedings at the material time, the document made by PDP was inadmissible under S.91 (3) because they were interested in the outcome of the litigation between UGWU v. ARARUME.

— M. Ogunwumiju JCA. Arab Contractors (O.A.O.) Nigeria Ltd. V. Gillian Umanah (CA/L/445M/09, 26 April 2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

admissibility

THREE MAIN CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT

A good starting point is to state the three main criteria that govern the admissibility of a document in evidence, namely:- (1) Is the document pleaded? (2) Is it relevant to the inquiry being tried by the court? and (3) Is it admissible in law? See Okonji v. Njokanma (1999) 11 – 12 SCNJ 259 @ 273 where Achike JSC stated thus: “The position of the law in relation to the question of admissibility of a document in evidence is that admissibility is one thing while the probative value that may be placed thereon is another. Generally, three main criteria govern the admissibility of a document in evidence, namely: (1) is the document pleaded? (2) is it relevant to the inquiry being tried by the court? and (3) is it admissible in law?”

— A. Jauro, JCA. Chevron v. Aderibigbe (2011) – CA/L/76/04

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT WILL EXPUNGE INADMISSIBLE EXHIBIT RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE

The law is that where a Court has received evidence that is inadmissible, the proper thing is to expunge such evidence from the records; see Zenith bank Plc v. Ekereuwem (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1290) at 213 214. Consequently, I make an Order expunging Exhs. PW1-A1 PW1-A7 from the record of this Court in this case.

— I.E. Ekwo J. Mbah v. NYSC, Ibrahim Muhammad (FHC/ABJ/CS/611/2023, 10-NOV-2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

RELEVANCY GOVERNS ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE

When it is a question of admission of evidence, strictly, it is not whether the method by which it is obtained is tortious but excusable, but whether what has been obtained is relevant to the issue being tried. See Kuruma v. R. (1955) AC 197.

— Ogwuegbu JSC. Oshunrinde v Akande (1996) – SC.110/1990

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE GIVEN IN PREVIOUS JUDICIAL PROCEEDING

The intent and purpose of Section 34 of the Evidence Act is clear. Simply put, it pertains to the admissibility in the present proceeding, of evidence given by a witness in a previous proceeding. Such previous evidence though hearsay, is admissible in the present proceeding under Section 34, which provide an exception to hearsay rule once the requisite conditions are fulfilled. See IKENYE VS OFUNE (1985) 2 NWLR (PT 5) 1. For the purpose of clarity, I herein below reproduce the provisions of Section 34 (1) of the Evidence Act:- 34(1) “Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence or is kept out of the way by the adverse Party, or when his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, in the circumstances of the case, the court considers unreasonable: Provided:- (a) that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; (b) that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross examine; and (c) that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.” I do not need to say much again. The above provision is very clear and succinct to the effect that it relates to the admissibility of evidence given in a previous judicial proceeding in a subsequent judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same proceeding.

— S.C. Oseji, JCA. ACB v Ajugwo (2011) – CA/E/66/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

TYPES OF INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (BY LAW OR BY FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS)

In a trial by a Judge alone, as in the case in hand, a distinction must be drawn between those cases where the evidence complained of is in no circumstances admissible in law and where the evidence complained of is admissible under certain conditions. In the former class of cases the evidence cannot be acted upon even if parties admitted it by consent and the court of appeal will entertain complaint on the admissibility of such evidence by the lower court (although the evidence was admitted in the lower court without objection); in the latter class of case, if the evidence was admitted in the lower court without objection or by consent of parties or was used by the opposite party (e.g. for the purpose of cross-examination) then it would be within the competence of the trial court to act on it and the court of appeal will not entertain any complaint on the admissibility of such evidence.

— Ogundare, JSC. Kossen v Savannah Bank (1995) – SC.209/89

Was this dictum helpful?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT CERTIFIED IS ADMISSIBLE THROUGH A PARTY WHO IS NOT TO THE CASE

By virtue of the provisions of Section 102(b) of the Evidence Act, 2011, public documents include public records kept in Nigeria of private documents. See: ONWUZURUIKE v EDOZIEM & ORS (2016) LPELR 26056(SC) at pages 10 – 11, paras. F-B, where the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen, JSC held that a private document sent to the Police formed part of the record of the Police and is consequently a public document within the provisions of Section 109 of the old Evidence Act, now Section 102 of the extant Evidence Act, 2011. It is also trite that a public document duly so certified, is admissible in evidence notwithstanding that it is not tendered by the maker. Indeed, a certified true copy of a public document can be tendered by person who is not a party to the case. See: MARANRO v ADEBISI (2007) LPELR-4663(CA); DAGGASH v BULAMA (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 144 at 187; and MUSTAPHA SHETTIMA & ORS v ALHAJI BUKAR CUSTOMS (2021) LPELR-56150(CA). Exhibits RA1 and RA2, being in the public record of the 1st Respondent are public documents and are therefore admissible in evidence, having been certified by the 1st Respondent under Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Peter Obi & Anor. v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/03/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.