ORAL EVIDENCE IN EARLIER TRIAL NOT RELEVANT IN A LATER TRIAL

With due deference to the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, it is settled law that evidence of a witness taken in an earlier proceedings is not relevant in a later trial or proceeding except for the purpose of discrediting such a witness in cross examination and for that purpose only. – Sanusi JCA. Enejo v. Nasir (2006)

Was this dictum helpful?

TESTIFYING IN NATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT PROOF OF ILLITERACY

It is also imperative to note that the fact that a witness opted to testify in his native language, is not a conclusive evidence that he is an illiterate. He may choose to do so because he feels much comfortable expressing himself in his mother-tongue, and not because he did not know how to write or read.

– T.N. Orji-Abadua, JCA. Kabau v. Rilwanu (2013) – CA/K/179/2001

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE TO CONTRADICT DOCUMENT

It is trite law that oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict the contents of a document. In other words oral testimony cannot be used to state the content of a document. This is so, because documents when tendered and admitted in court are like words uttered and do speak for themselves. They are more reliable and authentic then words from the vocal cord of man as they are neither transient nor subject to distortion and miss-interpretation but remain permanent and indelible through the ages.

– Muntaka- coomassie, JSC. Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) – SC

Was this dictum helpful?

TESTIFYING IN NATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT PROOF OF ILLITERACY

In Oyebode vs. Oloyede (1999) 2 NWLR Part 592 page 523, the present Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mukhtar, CJN, when she was in the Court of Appeal had this to say: “Agreed that he gave evidence in Yoruba, but the question is, is that sufficient to assure that he could not read or understand English, or that he is illiterate? It may well be that he found it easier to testify in Yoruba, in open court and so elected to speak in his native language.”

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE MORE CREDIBLE IF SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENT

The position of the law is that once documentary evidence supports oral evidence, such oral evidence becomes more credible. The reasoning is premised on the fact and the law that documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony.

– Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Ukeje v. Ukeje (2014)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE ORAL EVIDENCE IN PRIOR TRIAL MAY BE USED

Ariku v. Ajiwogbo (1962) All NLR (Pt. 4) 630, Ademola CJF (of blessed memory) delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court stated the law as follows:- “This court has frequently directed attention to the practice, now not uncommon of making use of evidence of a witness in another case as if it were evidence in the case on trial. As was pointed out in Alade v. Aborishade (1960) 5 FSC 167 at 171, this is only permissible under section 33 or 34 of the Evidence Act. Where a witness in a former case is giving evidence in a case in hand, his former evidence may be brought up in cross-examination to discredit him if he was lying, but evidence used for this purpose does not become evidence in the case in hand for any other purpose. There are also prerequisites to the making use of the former testimony of a witness; for example his attention must be called to the former case where such evidence was given and he would be reminded of what he had said on the occasion.”

NO LAW PROHIBITS RELATIONS FROM TESTIFYING IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE IN EARLIER TRIAL NOT RELEVANT IN A LATER TRIAL

Was this dictum helpful?

TESTIFYING IN NATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT PROOF OF ILLITERACY

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE TO CONTRADICT DOCUMENT

Was this dictum helpful?

TESTIFYING IN NATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT PROOF OF ILLITERACY

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE MORE CREDIBLE IF SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENT

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE ORAL EVIDENCE IN PRIOR TRIAL MAY BE USED

Was this dictum helpful?