The law is equally well settled that where inadmissible evidence is admitted, it behooves the trial Court to expunge such evidence from the record and consider if there is any viable evidence upon which the charge could be sustained. In essence, the wrongful admission of an evidence ought not to totally affect the decision of the Court unless the use of such evidence has resulted in occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
– Saulawa, JSC. Makanjuola v. State (2021)
SHARE ON
It is trite that the mere retraction of a confessional statement by the Defendant will not render it inadmissible. It will only affect the weight to be attached to it where the Defendant denies making it at the earliest opportunity.
– Ogunwumiju JSC. Junaidu v. State (2021)
The Supreme Court in Omega Bank (Nig) Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd. [2005] 8 NWLR (Part 928) 547 at 587 Paragraphs C – D per Tobi, JSC (as he then was) the Apex Court held inter alia that: “… It is my view that where a document is not signed, it may not be admitted in evidence. Even if it is admitted in evidence, the Court should not attach any probative value to it. This is because a document which is not signed has no origin in terms of its maker….at page 582 Paragraph A, His Lordship, Tobi, JSC of blessed memory further emphasized that:” A document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in law. As held in the cases examined, the document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious…”
Nonetheless, it is the law, that an already admitted document can be jettisoned by a court at a judgment stage or by an appellate court if it is inherently inadmissible even if it was admitted without objection, see Abubakar v. Joseph (supra); Abubakar v. Chuks(2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 386; Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) 11NWLR (Pt. 1364) 117. Again, it is the law that a document not tendered by the marker commands no probative value because, he cannot be subjected to cross-examination on it, Belgore v. Ahmed(2013) 8 nwlr (pt. 1355) 60.
— Ogbuinya JCA. Benjamin Agi V. Access Bank Plc (formerly known and called Intercontinental Bank Plc (CA/MK/86/2012, 28 Nov 2013)
Where there is documentary evidence on an aspect of a party’s case, no oral evidence is admissible on that aspect. This is because our adjectival law does not admit oral evidence on an aspect or area covered by a document. A party cannot benefit from two ways: documentary evidence and oral evidence. He can only lead evidence in respect of one and not the two of them. But this principle of law is subject to an important qualification and it is this. If the parties by their ad idem agree by oral agreement to change part of the written agreement, the court will not reject the oral agreement.
– Niki Tobi, JSC. Brossette v. Ilemobola (2007)
By virtue of the provisions of Section 102(b) of the Evidence Act, 2011, public documents include public records kept in Nigeria of private documents. See: ONWUZURUIKE v EDOZIEM & ORS (2016) LPELR 26056(SC) at pages 10 – 11, paras. F-B, where the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen, JSC held that a private document sent to the Police formed part of the record of the Police and is consequently a public document within the provisions of Section 109 of the old Evidence Act, now Section 102 of the extant Evidence Act, 2011. It is also trite that a public document duly so certified, is admissible in evidence notwithstanding that it is not tendered by the maker. Indeed, a certified true copy of a public document can be tendered by person who is not a party to the case. See: MARANRO v ADEBISI (2007) LPELR-4663(CA); DAGGASH v BULAMA (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 144 at 187; and MUSTAPHA SHETTIMA & ORS v ALHAJI BUKAR CUSTOMS (2021) LPELR-56150(CA). Exhibits RA1 and RA2, being in the public record of the 1st Respondent are public documents and are therefore admissible in evidence, having been certified by the 1st Respondent under Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Peter Obi & Anor. v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/03/2023
By Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011, documents are inadmissible in Court where the maker is an interested person and had made the documents when the proceedings are pending or anticipated.
– Yahaya, JCA. Petroleum Resources v. SPDC (2021)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry