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!

THREE MAIN CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

admissibility

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

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?

INHERENTLY INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE CAN BE EXPUNGED AT ANYTIME

Incontestably, if a party fails to register an objection to the admissibility of a document in the bowel of a trial Court, he is estopped from opposing its admission on appeal. This hallowed principle of procedural law is elastic. It admits of an exception. Where a document is inherently inadmissible, as in the instant case, the rule becomes lame. The law grants a trial Court the unbridled licence to expunge admitted inadmissible evidence at the judgment stage. An appellate Court enjoys the same right so far as the document is inherently inadmissible. The wisdom behind these is plain. A Court of law is drained of the jurisdiction to act on an inadmissible evidence in reaching a decision, see Alade v. Olukade (1976) 2 SC 183; IBWA v. Imano Ltd. (2001) 3 SCNJ 160; Durosaro v Ayorinde (2005) 8 NWLR (pt. 927) 407; Namsoh v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 292) 129; Abubakar v. Joseph (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 307; Abubakar v Chuks (2007) 18 NWLR (pt. 1066) 389; Phillips v. E.D.C. & Ind. Co. Ltd. (2013) 1 NWLR (pt. 1336) 618; Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 117.

— O.F. Ogbuinya, JCA. Impact Solutions v. International Breweries (2018) – CA/AK/122/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

EXTRA JUDICIAL STATEMENT IS INADMISSIBLE EXCEPT TO CONTRADICT

The extra judicial statement of a witness in a criminal trial is inadmissible as evidence for either side. The admissible evidence is the evidence on oath in open Court by the witness which is subject to cross examination by the adverse party. The only time when an extra judicial statement of a witness is admissible is where a party seeks to use it to contradict the evidence of a witness already given on oath.

– Ogunwumiju JCA. Okeke v. State (2016)

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?

DESPITE RELEVANCY, DOCUMENT MAY BE INADMISSIBLE BY OPERATION OF LAW

Section 1 of the Evidence Act is to the effect that evidence may be given of the facts in issue and relevant fact. Proviso (b) thereto is categorical that the Section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force. There is no doubt that by virtue of Section 2 of the Evidence Act that a piece of evidence excluded either by the Act itself or any other legislation validly in force in Nigeria cannot be admissible in evidence. It is therefore, not only relevancy that governs admissibility. A piece of evidence may be relevant and yet could, by operation of law, be inadmissible.

— E. Eko, JSC. Kekong v State (2017) – SC.884/2014

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.