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 any transaction entered into by that company. Where the official giving the evidence is not the one, who actually took part in the transaction on, behalf of the company, such evidence is nonetheless relevant and admissible and will not be discountenanced or rejected as hearsay evidence. The fact that such official did not personally participate in the transaction on which he has given evidence may in appropriate cases, however, affect the weight to be attached to such evidence, Kate Enterprises Ltd. v. Daewoo (Nig.) Ltd. [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 116; Anyaebosi v. R. T. Briscoe (Nig) Ltd. [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 84; Chief Igbodim and Ors. V. Chief Ugbede Obianke (1976) 9-10 SC 178, 187 etc.

Was this dictum helpful?

HEARSAY EVIDENCE WHEN WITNESS IS NOT THE MAKER

It is trite law that evidence of a witness who is not the maker of such statement is hearsay evidence and generally not admissible. See Sylvester Utteh v State (1992) 2 NWLR part 223-257, SUBRAMANIAN VS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (1956) 1 WLR 965. State v Masiga (2017) – SC

Was this dictum helpful?

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 is not direct evidence which has acquired the nickname: hearsay or second hand evidence. In the view of the law, hearsay evidence can only be used to inform a Court about what a witness heard another say and not establish the truth of an event, see Section 37, 38 and 126 of the Evidence Act, 2011; (former Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 2004); Kasa v. State (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 344) 269; FRN v. Usman (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1301) 141; Theophilus v. State (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 423) 139; Doma v. INEC (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 297; Onovo v. Mba (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 391; Kakih v. PDP (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1430) 374; Ikpeazu v. Otti (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 38; Opara v A. G. Fed. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1569) 61.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

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 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 before bringing them to this court. That much is evident in the contents of Dr Ter’s Certificate in Exhibit PAF 4B above. For the same reason, the argument that Dr Ter is not in a position to answer questions on the said clips and so his evidence on them is hearsay is also non sequitur.

— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Atiku v PDP (CA/PEPC/05/2023, 6th of September, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN IS A TESTIMONY HEARSAY

In the case of Subramaniam vs Public Prosecutor, (1956) 1 WLR 965 at 969, hearsay evidence was described in the following terms: “Evidence of a statement made to a witness called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made”.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

HEARSAY RULE EXCEPTED IN TESTIMONY GIVEN BY ANY COMPANY EMPLOYEE

Was this dictum helpful?

HEARSAY EVIDENCE WHEN WITNESS IS NOT THE MAKER

Was this dictum helpful?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

HEARSAY DOES NOT ARISE FROM SECTION 84 EVIDENCE ACT 2011

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN IS A TESTIMONY HEARSAY

Was this dictum helpful?