NATURE OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE – RATIONALE FOR HEARSAY EVIDENCE EXCLUSION

Now, the law is settled that any statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness is hearsay if the statement seeks to establish the truth of what is contained therein and therefore inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Section 77 of the Evidence Act. This is because such...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

HEARSAY EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE

In JAMB V. ORJI (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 1072) 552, the Court held: “What then is hearsay? Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

HEARSAY DOES NOT ARISE FROM SECTION 84 EVIDENCE ACT 2011

The authentication required by Section 84 of the Evidence Act, in the circumstances the video clips in issue were made, is statements assuring the court that they are in the exact same state they were in the internet from where Dr Ter (P.W.19) downloaded them to his laptop computer and subsequently to his flash drives...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS TO HELP COURT AS TO WHAT ANOTHER SAID, BUT NOT ESTABLISH THE TRUTH

One of the remnants of the appellants grouses is against the evidence proffered by PW1. They branded it as inadmissible hearsay. In our adjectival law, a witness is expected to testify on oath, or affirmation, on what he knows personally. Where a witness gives evidence on what another person told him about events, then it...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

WHEN OBJECT OF EVIDENCE IS TO PROVE TRUTH OF STATEMENT MADE BY ANOTHER, IS HEARSAY

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecution (1956) 1 WLR 965 at 969, it was held that: “Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to prove the truth of the facts asserted by the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by evidence not the truth by the statement but the fact that it was made'”

Was this dictum helpful?

HEARSAY RULE EXCEPTED IN TESTIMONY GIVEN BY ANY COMPANY EMPLOYEE

In Ishola v. Societe Generale Bank Ltd. (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 488) 405, the apex Court held: it cannot be over emphasized that a company being a legal person or a juristic person can only act through its agents or servants and any agent or servant of a company can therefore give evidence to establish...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

WHEN IS A TESTIMONY HEARSAY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

NATURE OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE – RATIONALE FOR HEARSAY EVIDENCE EXCLUSION

Membership Required

HEARSAY EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE

Membership Required

HEARSAY DOES NOT ARISE FROM SECTION 84 EVIDENCE ACT 2011

Membership Required

HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS TO HELP COURT AS TO WHAT ANOTHER SAID, BUT NOT ESTABLISH THE TRUTH

Membership Required

WHEN OBJECT OF EVIDENCE IS TO PROVE TRUTH OF STATEMENT MADE BY ANOTHER, IS HEARSAY

Was this dictum helpful?

HEARSAY RULE EXCEPTED IN TESTIMONY GIVEN BY ANY COMPANY EMPLOYEE

Membership Required