The position of the law is that once documentary evidence supports oral evidence, such oral evidence becomes more credible. The reasoning is premised on the fact and the law that documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony.
– Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Ukeje v. Ukeje (2014)
SHARE ON
With due deference to the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, it is settled law that evidence of a witness taken in an earlier proceedings is not relevant in a later trial or proceeding except for the purpose of discrediting such a witness in cross examination and for that purpose only. – Sanusi JCA. Enejo v. Nasir (2006)
It is trite law that oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict the contents of a document. In other words oral testimony cannot be used to state the content of a document. This is so, because documents when tendered and admitted in court are like words uttered and do speak for themselves. They are more reliable and authentic then words from the vocal cord of man as they are neither transient nor subject to distortion and miss-interpretation but remain permanent and indelible through the ages.
– Muntaka- coomassie, JSC. Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) – SC
It is correct, as submitted, that Section 126(a)-(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides inter alia that “oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct”. The rationale for the rule can be said to be: (1) The unreliability of the original maker of the statement who is not in Court and not cross-examined; (2) The depreciation of the truth arising from repetition; (3) Opportunities for fraud; (4) The tendency of such evidence to lead to prolonged inquiries and proceedings; (5) Hearsay evidence tends to encourage the substitution of weaker evidence for stronger evidence.
— J.H. Sankey, JCA. Brila Energy Ltd. v. FRN (2018) – CA/L/658CA/2017
In Oyebode vs. Oloyede (1999) 2 NWLR Part 592 page 523, the present Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mukhtar, CJN, when she was in the Court of Appeal had this to say: “Agreed that he gave evidence in Yoruba, but the question is, is that sufficient to assure that he could not read or understand English, or that he is illiterate? It may well be that he found it easier to testify in Yoruba, in open court and so elected to speak in his native language.”
There is no law, it should be pointed out, which prohibits relations of the victim of a crime or otherwise from testifying for the prosecution in a case against an accused person charged in the commission of such crime. As a result, a witness cannot properly be described and treated as a tainted witness by reason only of his blood, marriage or other relationship with the victim of the crime in respect of which he testified as a witness for the prosecution.
– M.L. Garba JCA. Odogwu v. Vivian (2009) – CA/PH/345/05
Having regard to the provisions of section 132(1) of the Evidence Act, oral evidence cannot be admitted to contradict, alter, add to or vary a contract or document unless such evidence falls within any of the matters that may be proved by such oral evidence by virtue of the provisos thereto. The provisos only permit evidence which will not be inconsistent with the terms of the relevant contract or document.
– Uwaifo JSC. Fortune v. Pegasus (2004)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry