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!

A PARTY IS FREE TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON AN AFFIDAVIT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

I am in grave difficulty to agree with the submission of learned Senior Advocate. First, the first leg of his submission implies that an affidavit admitted as an exhibit is not open to cross-examination. This conclusion is drawn from his argument that the difference between an affidavit and a deposition which is a written testimony is that the latter is open to cross-examination. That is not my understanding of the law. A party is free to cross-examine on an affidavit admitted in evidence, particularly where there is a counter-affidavit. Where there is no counter-affidavit, then the deposition will be generally deemed to be correct. In the circumstances a blanket statement such as the one by Counsel, cannot be correct.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

affidavit

WHERE CONFLICT IN BOTH AFFIDAVITS, COURT WILL CALL FOR ORAL EVIDENCE

On the question of conflict of affidavit evidence placed before the lower court which appellant’s learned Counsel had submitted should be resolved by oral evidence in order to act on such evidence, our case law is replete with authorities that where a matter is being tried on affidavit evidence and the court is confronted with conflicting or contradictory evidence relied on by the parties on a material issue before the court; it is the law that the court cannot resolve such conflict by evaluating the conflicting evidence but is obliged to call for oral evidence in order to achieve resolution of the conflict. (See Falobi v Falobi (1976) 9 & 10 SC 1 and Akinsete v Akidutire (1966) All NLR 137).

— Achike JSC. Momah v VAB Petro (2000) – SC. 183/1995

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT SHOWING CAUSE TO DEFEND MUST DISCLOSE A DEFENCE

Furthermore, an affidavit showing cause why a defendant should be granted leave to defend an action must disclose a defence on the merit setting out the details and particulars of the defence. The popular expression is that the affidavit must “condescend upon particulars.” The affidavit showing cause must disclose facts which will at least throw some doubt on the plaintiff’s case. See U.B.A. Plc Vs Jargaba (Supra); Macaulay Vs NAL Merchant Bank Ltd (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 144) 283: Nishizawa Ltd Vs Jethwani (1984) 12 SC 234.

— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun JSC. B.O. Lewis v. United Bank for Africa Plc. (SC.143/2006, 14 January 2016)

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT PARAGRAPHS THAT OFFEND SECTION 115 EVIDENCE ACT 2011 WILL BE STRUCK OUT

The stipulations of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is a reproduction of the provisions of Sections 86, 88 and 89 of the Evidence Act, 1990. It is rudimentary law that any paragraph of an affidavit which offends against the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act may be struck out, but if it is not struck out, no weight should be attached to it: JOSIEN HOLDINGS LTD vs. LORNAMEAD LTD (supra), FMG vs. SANI (NO. 2) (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 624 and EDU vs. COMM. FOR AGRIC. (2000) 12 NWLR (PT 681) 318. Indeed, it seems to be settled law that any paragraph of an affidavit which offends Section 115 of the Evidence Act ought not to be acted upon. It is liable to be discountenanced and struck out. See OSIAN vs. FLOUR MILLS (1968) 2 ALL NLR 13, EURO BATI CONCEPT S.A. vs. TROPICAL INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD (2001) 18 NWLR (PT 744) 165 and A-G ADAMAWA vs. A-G (FED) (2005) 18 NWLR (PT 958) 581 at 625 and 657-658.

— U.A. Ogakwu, JCA. Lagos State v NDIC (CA/L/124/2003(R), Court of Appeal, June 2nd 2020)

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE WILL BE ALLOWED FOR IRRECONCILABLE AFFIDAVITS

It is in exceptional cases for example where there are irreconcilable affidavits from both sides, that oral evidence will be allowed to be led in support of interlocutory application (see Falobi v. Falobi (1976) 9-10 S.C. 15, Eboh & Ors. v. Oki & Ors. (1974) 1 SC. 179), Uku & Ors. v. Okumagba & Ors. (1974) 3 SC. 35) unlike pleadings which will have to be supported by evidence at the trial as stated earlier.

– Kutigi JSC. Magnusson v. Koiki (1993) – SC.119/1991

Was this dictum helpful?

DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO AFFIDAVIT FORMS PART OF THE EVIDENCE OF DEPONENT

I have already held that a document attached to or exhibited with affidavit forms part of the evidence adduced by the deponent and is deemed to be properly before the court and to be used, once the court is satisfied that it is credible. Being already an evidence before the court (on oath), the formality of certification for admissibility (if it required certification) had been dispensed with. Of course, the reason for this is easy to deduce, the first being that affidavit evidence is already an admitted evidence before the court, unlike pleading which must be converted to evidence at the trial at which time issues of admissibility of an exhibit is decided The second point is that an exhibited copy of a document attached to an affidavit evidence must necessarily be a photocopy or secondary copy (except where the document was executed in several parts or counter parts and the deponent has many of the parts to exhibit in original forms). It is therefore unthinkable to expect the exhibited photocopy to be certified by the adverse party before the court can attach probative value to it.

– I.G. Mbaba, JCA. Ilorin East v. Alasinrin (2012) – CA/IL/38/2011

Was this dictum helpful?

CONTRADICTIONS IN APPLICANT’S OWN AFFIDAVIT

Based on the above findings, the applicant cannot be heard to contend that the court below did not exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously. With the inconsistent, dishonest and woolly averments in the affidavits of the applicant, no reasonable tribunal could have granted his application. The court below was even charitable to him to have gone into the merits of the application … The applicant having contradicted himself on very serious and important issues of fact in his application which bordered on dishonesty, should not have turned round to complain. He did not approach the court with clean hands and those averments disqualified him from the exercise of the court’s discretion in his favour.

— Ogwuegbu, JSC. Momah v VAB Petro (2000) – SC. 183/1995

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.