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

IN DETERMINING ADMISSIBILITY, IT IS RELEVANCY THAT MATTERS NOT CUSTODY

Admissibility is a rule of evidence and it is based on relevancy. See Sadau v. The State (1968) 1 All NLR 124: Ogonzee v. State (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 566. In determining the admissibility of evidence, the court will not consider how it was obtained; rather the court will take into consideration whether what is admitted is relevant to the issues being tried. See Igbinovia v. The State (1981) 2 SC 5. In Elias v. Disu (1962) 1 SCNLR 361, (1962) 1 All NLR 214, this court held that in determining admissibility of evidence, “it is the relevancy of the evidence that is important and not how the evidence was obtained.”

— N. Tobi JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE WHERE DOCUMENT EXIST

Where there is documentary evidence on an aspect of a party’s case, no oral evidence is admissible on that aspect. This is because our adjectival law does not admit oral evidence on an aspect or area covered by a document. A party cannot benefit from two ways: documentary evidence and oral evidence. He can only lead evidence in respect of one and not the two of them. But this principle of law is subject to an important qualification and it is this. If the parties by their ad idem agree by oral agreement to change part of the written agreement, the court will not reject the oral agreement.

– Niki Tobi, JSC. Brossette v. Ilemobola (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

UNREGISTERED INSTRUMENT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE RECEIPT OF MONEY

The law is well settled that an unregistered document which falls within the provisions of section 2 of the Land Registration Law of Kaduna State or under the corresponding provisions of the Land Instrument Registration Act can be admitted in evidence as a receipt of money transaction and memorandum of sale only. It cannot certainly be used to prove title. It may give rise to an equitable interest enforceable by specific performance.

– Sanusi JCA. Enejo v. Nasir (2006)

Was this dictum helpful?

RELEVANCY GOVERNS ADMISSIBILITY

In civil proceedings every fact which is pleaded and is relevant to the case of either of the parties ought to be admitted in evidence. The denial of making the document by the respondent ought to affect weight not admissibility. In the instant case, the trial court considered the weight to be attached to the document instead of its relevance which ought to have been considered at that stage of the proceedings when the document was tendered. See Ogunbiade v. Sasegbon (1968) NMLR 233. Thanni v. Saibu (1977) 2 SC 89 @ 116. Monier Construction co. Ltd v. Azubuike (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136) 74. Fadlallah v. Arewa Textiles Ltd (supra).

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

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT CAN ONLY ACT ON ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

There is no doubt, however, that a court is expected in all proceedings before it to admit and act only on evidence which is admissible in law (i.e. under the Evidence Act or any other law or enactment relevant in any particular case) and so if the court should inadvertently admit inadmissible evidence it has a duty generally not to act upon it. When, however, inadmissible evidence is tendered it is the duty of the opposite (or adverse) party or his counsel to object immediately to the admissibility of such evidence; although if the opposite party should fail to raise objection in such circumstances the court in civil cases may (and, in criminal case, must) reject such evidence ex proprio motu. On appeal, however, different considerations arise where a party failed to take objection to inadmissible evidence in the court of trial. It has frequently been stated (as, indeed, learned counsel for the appellant has done) that where a matter has been improperly received in evidence in the court below, even when no objection has been there raised, it is the duty of the court of appeal to reject it and to decide the case on legal evidence.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

WRONGFUL ADMITTAL OF EVIDENCE MUST LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

The law is equally well settled that where inadmissible evidence is admitted, it behooves the trial Court to expunge such evidence from the record and consider if there is any viable evidence upon which the charge could be sustained. In essence, the wrongful admission of an evidence ought not to totally affect the decision of the Court unless the use of such evidence has resulted in occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

– Saulawa, JSC. Makanjuola v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.