Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

NOT CHALLENGING REJECTION OF EVIDENCE

Dictum

Akpasubi v. Umweni (1982) All N.L.R. 306 at 308 where the Supreme Court held that “It is elementary I think that once a trial court rejected the evidence of a witness and the Judge’s decision in regard thereto has not been challenged on appeal that is the end of that evidence for ever”.

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

COMPETENCY IS A MATTER OF UNDERSTANDING

And, apart from this, there is a long line of authorities establishing that competency is not a matter of age but of understanding and that if a child understands the nature of an oath, the provisions in question are completely out of place. See Reg. v. Perkins (1840) 9 C. & P. 395 (or 173 E.R.884); also R. v. Michael Moscovitch (1924) 18 CAR 37. – Coker JSC. Okoye v. State (1972)

Was this dictum helpful?

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ENTAILS

In the case of Lafia Local Government –V- Executive Governor Nasarawa State & Ors (2012) LPELR – 2060, OLABODE RHODES VIVOUR, JSC at page 23 paras, E-F said: “Evaluation of evidence entails the trial judge examining all evidence before him before making his findings. This is done by putting all the evidence on an imaginary scale to see which side appears outweighs the other.”

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE

It is already a settled law that an affidavit evidence constitutes evidence and must be so construed, hence, any deposition therein which is not challenged or controverted is deemed admitted.

– O. Ariwoola, JSC. Tukur v. Uba (2012) – SC.390/2011

Was this dictum helpful?

THE PEPT CONSIDERED EVIDENCE DESPITE DISCARDING THEM

We, however, wish to state that, despite our conclusions above on the objections raised by Respondents to documents tendered by the petitioners, I am still minded to the evaluate evidence adduced and consider the merits of the petition. The only evidence I shall not revisit are Exhibits PBD, PBD1A, PBD1B, PBD1C, PBD1D, PBD1A, PBD2A, PBD3, PBD4, PBE1, PBE2, PBE3, PBE4, PBE5, PBE6, PBF1, PBF2, PBF3 and PBF4 relating to 2nd Respondent’s alleged non-qualification that were tendered by P.W.27, Mr. Mike Enahoro-Ebah, the said documents in our view being bereft of pleadings to sustain them as elaborately stated earlier in this judgment.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED TO VARY WRITTEN CONTRACT

The Supreme Court has held in Layade v. Panalpina (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 544 at 558; (1996) 7 SCNJ 1 at 14-15 per Adio. J.S.C., as follows and I quote; ”The general rule is that where 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 … So, where the parties enter into a contract, they are bound by the terms of that contract and it is unfair to read into such a contract the terms on which there was no agreement.”

Was this dictum helpful?

EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE CANNOT VARY WRITTEN TERMS

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.