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!

RAISING AN APPEAL ON ADMITTED EVIDENCE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Chief Williams submits that a ruling on admissibility of evidence is provisional as a trial Judge in his final judgment may still exclude evidence that has been admitted if he discovers it has been wrongly admitted. In my respectful view, that submission appears rather too wide. The two authorities cited by him as supporting it do not go as far. In NIPC v. Thompson Organisation (1969) 1 NMLR 99, it is evidence that goes to no issue but wrongly admitted that is held should be expunged when considering the verdict. In Jacker v. International Cable Co. Ltd. 5 TLR 13, another case cited by Chief Williams, it was held there that where matter has been improperly received in evidence in the court of trial, even when no objection has been there raised, it is the duty of the Court of Appeal to reject it and to decide the case on legal evidence. With profound respect to the learned Senior Advocate these two decisions which he cited in oral argument before us do not support the rather wide submission he has made. In my view where evidence is tendered and objected to and the trial Judge, after full arguments by counsel for the parties, admits or rejects same, he cannot later, when considering his judgment reverse himself without hearing the parties; he cannot sit on appeal over his own judgment. Where evidence which goes to no issue has been inadvertently admitted the trial Judge is under a duty to disregard it when considering his verdict. If he fails to do so, an appellate court will.

— Michael Ekundayo Ogundare, JSC. Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) – S.C. 250/1991

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

evidence

CLAIMANT MUST RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS OWN CASE AND SUPPORT FROM EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT

I bear in mind the well-established principle of law that in every civil action in which a declaration is sought from the Court, a claimant who seeks the declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his own case as made out creditably in the evidence put forward by him in support of his case and not to merely rely on the weakness or even absence of the Defendant’s case. However, where the evidence of the Defendant supports the case of the claimant, he is perfectly entitled to rely on such evidence. See Nsirim v Nsirim (2002) FWLR (pt. 96) 433 @ p. 441.

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Anyi & Ors. v. Akande & Ors. (2017) – CA/L/334/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

RELEVANCY, ADMISSIBILITY, AND WEIGHT ARE IN SEPARATE DEPARTMENT IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

In the Law of Evidence, Relevancy, Admissibility of evidence, and weight to be attached to evidence, all these are each in a separate department. What value or weight to be attached to a piece of evidence, once it is admitted as evidence, is for the Jury, the judges of facts. And here in Nigeria, the trial judges sit in a dual capacity, qua Judges of law in matters of law and qua jury in matters of fact In my view, with due respect to the counsel, his criticism of the Tribunal is unwarrantable and so unjustified. It was for the Tribunal to accept or not to accept the evidence by the p.w.5. It was for it as well to ascribe weight or no weight to the exhibits. To be in the best position to reach a conclusion on the testimony of the p.w. 5 and the value to attach to the exhibits it adopted, in my view, the proper and right approach to reach its conclusion.

— Nsofor, JCA. Ugo v Indiamaowei (1999) – CA/PH/EP/97/99

Was this dictum helpful?

NOT FUNCTION OF THE COURT TO SUPPLY OMISSION

The main thrust of the appeal appears to be that if the original of the public document is lost or destroyed thereby rendering the making of a certified copy impracticable, it would be unjust not to admit other form of secondary evidence such as a photocopy of the original document. I share the plight of the appellant but it must be borne in mind that the duty of the court is to expound the law and not to expand it. It is not the function of the court to supply omissions in statutes and thereby embark on judicial legislation.

– Edozie, JSC. Araka v. Egbue (2003) – SC.167/1999

Was this dictum helpful?

EVIDENCE NOT CHALLENGED OR CONTRADICTED MUST BE ACCEPTED AS THE CORRECT VERSION

Saipem SPA vs. India Tefa (2001) FWLR (pt 74) 377 @p. 394, where this Court had held firmly inter alia, “When evidence of a witness has not been challenged, contradicted or shaken under cross-examination and such evidence is not inadmissible in law, provided the evidence is in line with the facts so pleaded, the evidence must be accepted as the correct version of what was expected to be proved. The Court is not only entitled to but also has no reason not to accept it.”

Was this dictum helpful?

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO A CHARGE NOT TENDERED AND ADMITTED ARE NOT EVIDENCE

Eze v. State (2026): ‘From the above excerpts, if the alleged Police Report were tendered in evidence it would not have been unfavourable to the prosecution. Therefore, section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 is inapplicable to this case. I must quickly point out that documents or statements accompanying a charge or an information filed in court, if not tendered and admitted in evidence at the trial, does not constitute evidence which the court can rely on.’

Was this dictum helpful?

THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT CAN DEPART FROM THE EVIDENCE ACT

“In any event, section 12(2)(b) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Order 5 Rule 6 (b) of the Rules of this Court 2017 allows this court to depart from the Evidence Act in the interest of justice, fairness, equity and fair-play. See the case of Mr. Victor Adegboyu V. United Bank for Africa (unreported) Appeal No. CA/IL/20/2021, a decision of the Court of Appeal Ilorin Judicial Division delivered on the 14th day of April, 2022, where the Court of Appeal applied section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and departed from the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011.”

— P.I. Hamman, J. per para. 2.6. FRN v ASUU (2022) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.