The general rule is that where the parties have embodied the terms of their contract in a written document, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, vary, subtract from or contradict the terms of the written instrument.
– Adio, JSC. UBN v. Ozigi (1994)
SHARE ON
The general rule is that where the parties have embodied the terms of their agreement or contract in a written document as it was done in this case, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, vary, subtract from or contradict the terms of the written instrument: See Mrs. O, D. Layode v Panalpina World Transport NY Ltd (1996) 6 NWLR (pt 456) 544, Glaloye v Balogun (1990) 5 NWLR (pt 148), Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (pt 333) 385.
— J.I. Okoro JSC. B.O. Lewis v. United Bank for Africa Plc. (SC.143/2006, 14 January 2016)
Where the Court of Appeal wrongly evaluates the evidence before the trial court and arrives at a wrong conclusion not borne out from the evidence before the court, the Supreme Court will intervene on the ground that the finding is perverse. But where the finding of the Court of Appeal is borne out from the evidence adduced in the trial court, this court cannot intervene. I do not see any reason for intervention in this appeal.
– Niki Tobi JSC. Iragunima v. Rivers State (2003)
In fact there is no doubt from the endorsement on the motion on notice as regards fees paid, that payment was made for oath taking, but there is no evidence the deponent attested before a commissioner for oath nor evidence of who endorsed on the stamp of the Court of Appeal. It is not sufficient to scribble an initial. Section 84 of the Evidence Act enjoins the court to permit a defective affidavit if satisfied it has been sworn before a person duly authorised. In the instance application the nature of the defect is not one in which this court can exercise discretion and allow same under section 84 of the Act.
— R.O. Nwodo, JCA. Onujabe & Ors. v. Fatimah Idris (CA/A/71/M/2009, 28 June 2011)
He failed to testify to utilise the opportunity. Rather, it was his Counsel who made bare statement from the Bar. That bare statement from the Bar has no force of legal evidence: ONU OBEKPA v. C.O.P. (1980) 1 NCR 113; NIGER CONST. LTD. v. OKUGBENI (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 787 at 792.
— E. Eko, JSC. Francis v. FRN (2020) – SC.810/2014
It is wrong and improper to treat the evidence given by a witness in a previous proceeding as one of truth in a subsequent or later proceeding, in which he has not given evidence. See Obawole & Anor. v. Coker (1994) 5 NWLR 416, Alade v. Aborishade (supra); Enang & Anor. V. Ukanem & Ors. (1962) 1 All.N.LR. 530, and Ariku v. Ajiwogbo (1962) 2 S.C.N.L.R 369.
— G.A. Oguntade, JSC. Tijani Dada v Jacob Bankole (2008) – S.C. 40/2003
Witnesses have the duty to tell the police as much as they know of a crime at the earliest opportunity in order to be seen as witnesses of truth and a Court of law must be careful in accepting delayed evidence when no satisfactory explanation is given.
– Ogunwumiju JCA. Okeke v. State (2016)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry