DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD BE A HANGER TO ACCESS ORAL TESTIMONY

“No doubt the legal proposition that where there is oral as well as documentary evidence, documentary evidence should be as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony is a sound one.” – per Nnaemeka Agu, J.S.C. in Kimdey & Ors. v. Military Governor of Gongola State & Ors. (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.77) 445; (1988) 1 NSCC 827, 851.

— Ogundare, JSC. Ibrahim v Barde (1996) – SC.74/1995

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE MUST BE DIRECT – SECTION 126 EVIDENCE ACT 2011

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

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTRADICT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

A.-G., Enugu State v. Avop Plc. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 399) 90 at 125, D per Tobi JCA: ‘And what is more, it is a general principle of law that oral evidence cannot be allowed to contradict documentary evidence. Sec generally section 132(1) of the Evidence Act Cap. 112, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. This principle of law is based on the premise that (a) the document was first in time and that the possibility of the oral evidence becoming an after thought cannot be entirely ruled out; (b) witness tells more lies than a document. Although a document can also lie by human intervention, the frequency of the lies on the part of a witness in court is much more than a document.’

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE TO CONTRADICT DOCUMENT

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

Was this dictum helpful?

TESTIFYING IN NATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT PROOF OF ILLITERACY

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE IN EARLIER TRIAL NOT RELEVANT IN A LATER TRIAL

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)

TWO WITNESSES TESTIMONIES BEING IDENTICAL SUGGEST TUTORING

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD BE A HANGER TO ACCESS ORAL TESTIMONY

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE MUST BE DIRECT – SECTION 126 EVIDENCE ACT 2011

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTRADICT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE TO CONTRADICT DOCUMENT

Was this dictum helpful?

TESTIFYING IN NATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT PROOF OF ILLITERACY

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE IN EARLIER TRIAL NOT RELEVANT IN A LATER TRIAL

Was this dictum helpful?