Law of evidence 1

Evidence is something which substantiates the existence of certain facts. Evidence is a testimony
whether oral, documentary or real which may be legally received in order to prove or disprove
some facts in disputes. According to section 256 of the evidence act fact is defined as anything.
state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses, and any mental
condition of which any person is conscious. The court may exclude remote evidences where the
court may deem to be irrelevant. The law of evidence however is deemed on two ground
Admissibility and relevance. Admissibility is said to be governed by the act, while relevance is
governed by logic or the act.
Question: please explain the scope of relevancy as prescribed in section 1 of the evidence act?
The evidence act provides in section 1 that Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of
the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereafter
declared to be relevant, and of no others, the implies that the in the course of determining which
fact is relevant to the fact in issue, the act has provided for that any fact existence and non-
existence to every fact and of such other facts declared to be relevant and in determining such
other facts which are declared to be relevant the evidence act has provided for certain guidelines
in determining such other facts. These guidelines are provided for in section 4-13 of the evidence
act
Section 258 (1) (b) of the evidence act defines facts in issue "fact in issue" includes an) fact from
which either by itself or in connection with other facts the existence, non-existence. nature or
extent of any right. liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily
follows:
How to draft issues
Issues can be said to be the disagreement, quarrel it is appoint disputed by the parties in a law
suit. It is a question that needs to be answered
 Problem
 Bone of contention
 Question
 Disputes
There are various ways in which issues can be raised
Whether format: it has been criticized as an incomplete sentence and ungrammatical and in
some cases may sound awkward
The question format: it has to be precise complete and straightforward, it must have three
characteristics, the relevant law , the significant facts and the question to be discussed and it
muct be narrow to the point that such question be answer with yes or no and any reader will
know that.
Your client, Jordan William learned that a bank employee had snooped into his banking
information for personal reasons, there are no cases in your jurisdiction claiming damages for
invasion of personal privacy.
Will the court recognize a civil action{L} for an invasion of personal privacy and award
damages when a bank employee examined Jordan Williams bank account without authorization
over a period of ten months?
Benji is alleged to have murder his wife the prosecution intents to produce evidence in court
showing that Benji had no job and murder just before the murder and as at withing , Benji
claimed insurance of 5million naira life insurance in the wife, is the evidence admissible.
Is the evidence that Benji had no job and money just before the murder and that within one
month of the death Benji claimed 5 million naira for life insurance on his wife admissible as
motive for the murder of his wife?
key facts-the evidence that Benji had no job and money just before the murder and that within
one month of the death Benji claimed 5m on life insurance on the wife.

LIST FACTS THAT ARE DECLARED RELEVANT BY THE EVIDENCE ACT CITING
RELEVANT SECTIONS.

i.Facts that are connected to the fact in issue are relevant according to S. 4 of the Evidence Act
2011

ii. Facts which occasion, cause or affect the facts in issue are relevant according to S.5 of the
Evidence Act 2011

iii. Facts which shows motive or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issues or
relevant fact is relevant fact according to S 6 of the Evidence Act 2011

iv. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant fact are relevant according to S7 of the
Evidence Act 2011

v. Act of conspiracy is a relevant fact according to S 8 of the Evidence Act 2011

vi.Fact s not otherwise relevant are relevant fact according to S 9 of the Evidence Act 2011

vii.Facts relevant in proceedings for damages are relevant according to S 10 of the Evidence Act
2011

viii.Facts showing existence of state of mind, body and feeling are relevant according to S11 of
the Evidence Act 2011

ix.Facts which bother on accidental or intentional acts are relevant according to S 12 of the
Evidence Act 2011
x.Existence of course or business are relevant according to S13 of the Evidence Act 2011

Classification of evidence
The various ways by which evidence is classified are either as
 Oral,
 documentary and
 real

1) Oral evidence also referred to as “parol evidence” is verbal testimony or evidence that is
given viva voce in judicial proceedings. It is regarded as the
(a) most important class of evidence. Witnesses are therefore sworn in on oath before
giving oral evidence
(b) failure to take an oath or affirm does not affect the admissibility of the evidence given
(c) S 206 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides for witness to be cautioned on the offence
of perjury when giving evidence
(d) S 207 of the Evidence Act 2011 stated that lack of religious belief at the time of
taking evidence does not invalidate the oath
(e) It is as commonly used as direct and documentary evidence, but it cannot be used to
contradict the contents of a document. In Lamie v DPMS Ltd ONNOGHEN JSC
observed that parties that embodied their agreements in written document cannot vary
such agreement with oral evidence.
(f) it is not the law that oral evidence cannot be used in support of a written document,
and documents before the court may not be of much assistance to the court unless
someone with knowledge to explain the documents is present to explain their purpose.
(g) a child below 14 years can only give unsworn evidence. The controversy
surrounding this is now history and the Evidence Act 2011 specifies that 14 years is the
age at which a child is capable of giving evidence.
(h)) Corroborative evidence is the additional, independent and confirming evidence
required in some cases to render composite evidence reliable. A corroborative evidence
must be (i) legally admissible (ii) originate from a source that is independent of the
evidence it is required to corroborate (iii)show that an offence is committed, and the
offence is committed by the defendant
(i) an unsworn evidence of a child can be given in either civil or criminal proceedings
only if it is direct
 (j) Only the oral evidence that is direct would be admissible in evidence in court. S126 of
the Evidence Act 2011 states oral evidence must be direct if it refers to a (i) fact that
could be seen, the evidence of a witness that says he saw that fact (ii) a fact that could be
heard –it must be the evidence of witness who heard the fact (iii) a fact that could be
perceived by any other sense or in any other manner it must be the evidence of a witness
who says he perceived that fact by the sense or in that manner (iv) if it refers to an
opinion or the oral grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the
person who holds that opinion. The court will use its discretion in the oral evidence given
by experts.

2) Documentary evidence contains information relevant to the fact in issue. It is the written
material that is tendered in court for the purpose of providing facts that are relevant to the
facts in issue. Documentary evidence is the most important type of evidence because it
speaks for itself, res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for itself) since what is written down
does not lie. This is the reason for insistence on documentary transactions. A document
tendered for purpose of identification is not relevant and so not a documentary evidence.
A documentary evidence. S 258 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides a wider definition of
document than the previous laws to include soundtrack, film, photo, computer output

3) Real evidence is physical evidence or objects produced for the inspection of the court. It
is tangible object that could be given in proof of a fact in issue, e.g. knife, pen, house,
blood stained cloth, S 127 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides the court the
authority to visit the locus in quo (the court goes to see for itself) for the purpose of
confirming what has been evident in in court to satisfy the auditory with the visual. Real
evidence is an objective or demonstrative evidence which can be presented in court where
they are moveable or inspected by the court where they are immoveable.

Make notes on following cases: 1.

a) In Agubiade v Sasegbon, (1968) NSCC 147 , the SCN held that admissible evidence is
evidence which is relevant and that that what is not relevant is not admissible. In
Fawehimi v Nigerian Bar Association (No 2) the SCN emphasized that only whar is
relevant is admissible and the court will not admit irrelevant facts. And in Sadau v The
State [1968] NMLR the court stated that where a fact is relevant it cannot be excluded. In
Yero v UBN Ltd &Ors [2000] 5 NWLR part 657, it was held that the rules of court will
only apply when a document has been admitted through the law of evidence.
b) In R. v Agwuna, (1949) WACA 456, the WACA held that there is no provision in the Act
which allows any evidence to be rejected as inadmissible except as provided in the Act.
This means that only the evidence that Act has exclude can be rejected.
c) In Lana v University of Ibadan, (1987) 4 NWLR pt. 64, p 245, the appellant was found
guilty of making claims in his CV to some publication which were unfounded in
consideration for promotion by the respondent. He was subsequently sentenced to three
years pause on promotion which he appealed against to the council and not getting a
 response, he paid three months salary to the bursary and left the university. The
University dismissed him which he challenged since he had resigned earlier. The court
was to determine if his dismissal from the university was valid. Court held that the
university council did not accept his letter of resignation and therefore he had not
resigned. His letter to the VC and the payment of 3 months’ salary were not documentary
evidence of resignation from the university.
d) In Ozude v IGP, (1965) All NLR 106, a case of assault and breach of the peace the
appellant police asked for a bribe of N60 from the villagers which the Lazarus
representing the village negotiated to N50 and later N40. Lazarus went to the
policeman’s house to pay the bribe money in company of his friends who stayed outside
while he went inside the house to pay the money. He told the friends. The next day the
police asked for N10 which he did not have but provided a bottle of drink that the
policeman requested. The drink was purchased by one of the two friends. Court found the
police guilty on the basis of the evidence. On appeal against the conviction the appellant
argued that the magistrate court erred in admitting the hearsay evidence of the witnesses
and that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Court rejected the prosecution’s reliance on
section 8 of the Evidence Act to admit the hearsay testimony of the three villagers.
e) In Bamgboye v Attorney General (Western Nigeria), (1966) NMLR 266
The appellant and two others were charged and tried for murder and assault. The apellant 
alone was convicted for murder andwas sentenced to death, the other two were discharged 
and acquitted on both counts. The appellants appeal 
was dismissed, and he then appealed to the Supreme Court. The main issue for determinati
on hinged on the admission by the courts below of the appellant's retracted confessional st
atement was made extra-judicially to the police.The retraction of extra judiciary statement
should be (a) An accused person who wishes to impeach his earlier extra-judicial
statement must establish that his earlier confessional statement cannot be true or correct.
He must therefore show that he was not correctly recorded; or that he in fact did not make
the statement; or that he was unsettled in mind at the time he made the statement; or that
he was induced to make the statement. Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, at page 253.(b) On
conviction based solely on the confession of an accused: an accused can be convicted on
his confession alone when the conditions for this are present. An accused can therefore be
convicted on his confession alone regardless of the fact that he resiled therefrom or
retracted it altogether at the trial. It is however, desirable that the contents therein should
be tested by facts outside the statement. In spite of the retraction, a confessional statement
must be considered along with other evidence by the trial Judge who at the end would
decide whether or not the appellant did make the statement as alleged by the police. Per
Katsina-Alu, JSC, at page 253. (c) On the nature of a confession is, by virtue of Section
27(1) of the Evidence Act an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime
stating or suggesting that he committed that crime. It follows that once an accused person
makes a statement under caution, admitting the charge or creating the impression that he
committed the offence with which he is charged, the statement becomes confessional. Per
Katsina-Alu, JSC, at page
f) S8 Fact in furtherance of common intention In R. v Blake Tye, (1844) 6 QB 126, one
of the conspirators made an entry in a book which was part of the fraud and the other
entry was for his convenience. Court admitted the first entry against both conspirators in
 furtherance of the common intention to defraud. The second entry was not admissible.
Liability lies in the common intention.
g) In Balogun v Police, (1953) 20 NLR 148 Section 8 Common intention. Three
defendants charged with conspiracy to steal bags of cement and stealing. The court
convicted them on the basis of the statement made by two of the defendants implicating
themselves in the presence o the appellant. Other evidence showed that the appellant was
party to the conspiracy. His appeal was that the statements made by the other accused
were not applicable to him and could not be used against him. However , the court
convicted him based on other evidence that showed common intention.

h) In Ibrahim v The State, (1991) NSCC 587 where the appellant was charged with
conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery, Five witnesses were called and he was
sentenced to death against which he appealed based arguing there was no nexus between
offence and the conviction since there was conflict between the charge and the evidence
adduced at the trial court. Court allowed the appeal and ordered the discharge and
acquittal of the appellant and his release from the custody of the Prison authorities.

i) Lucas v Novo Silieski, (1795) 170 ER 363 Section 9 introduces the inconsistent rule
when it allows which are neither in issue nor relevant to the fact in issue by itself or in
connection to other facts to be admitted if inconsistent with a fact in issue or a relevant
fact. In this case the plaintiff brought action to demand that his wage be paid by the
defendant his employer. The employer argued that the wages had been paid. It is the
convention in the company to pay on Saturday when the employees will line up for their
wage and the plaintiff had lined up and did not bring any complain at the end of the
payment. The court is to decide if the evidence by the defendant of the payment approach
was relevant. The evidence was held to be relevant and admissible because if it is true it
will be inconsistent to the plaintiff’s case at the trial.

relevant law- admissible as motive for the murder of the daughter

question - Is the evidence that Benji had no job and money just before the murder and that within
one month of the death Benji claimed N5M on life insurance on the wife relevant and admissible
as motive for the murder of the daughter?
Miss Fyne Face, a resident of Bwari, Abuja owns a Honda Civic Saloon car. On 15th
September, 2016, on her way to the market, the car developed a mechanical fault; she took the
car to Olu her longstanding mechanic for service. He told her that the problem was with the
brake pads and fluid which had to be changed. She then instructed him to change it with new
and original ones. He then charged Fifty thousand Naira (N50,000) and promised to finish the
work before nightfall. The following day, Miss Fyne Face received an urgent call to attend an
interview in Lokoja, Kogi State. She hurriedly packed and set out for the journey. On her way
between Gwagwalada and Abaji, a stray goat ran into the road and in a bid to avoid running
into it, she applied the brakes which to her utmost shock, did not respond, causing her to
swerve off the road and run into a ditch, severely damaging the car. She also suffered some
injuries. She has been able to identify the owner of the goat in that village. The Federal Road
Safety officers who came around helped her tow the vehicle to the FRSC office. A young
apprentice mechanic in Mechanic Olu’s office told Miss Face that his Oga did not change the
brake pads but only added brake fluid but begged that she keep the information confidential.
Her injuries have even yet to heal completely. The owner of the goat is Mama Kwali and she is
very poor. Miss Fyne Face has sued Mechanic Olu for negligence and claimed damages.  
Miss Face (the claimant/Plaintiff) wants to give evidence that the owner of the goat
Mama Kwali is very poor. How will the evidence be treated? WRITE THE ISSUE ONLY
Is the evidence that the poverty of the owner of the goat Mama kwali admissible as grounds for
awarding damages?

Is the evidence that Benji had no job and money just before the murder and that within one
month of the death Benji claimed N5M on life insurance on the wife relevant and admissible as
motive for the murder of the daughter?"

Miss Fyne Face, a resident of Bwari, Abuja owns a Honda Civic Saloon car. On 15th
September, 2016, on her way to the market, the car developed a mechanical fault; she took the
car to Olu her longstanding mechanic for service. He told her that the problem was with the
brake pads and fluid which had to be changed. She then instructed him to change it with new
and original ones. He then charged Fifty thousand Naira (N50,000) and promised to finish the
work before nightfall. The following day, Miss Fyne Face received an urgent call to attend an
interview in Lokoja, Kogi State. She hurriedly packed and set out for the journey. On her way
between Gwagwalada and Abaji, a stray goat ran into the road and in a bid to avoid running
into it, she applied the brakes which to her utmost shock, did not respond, causing her to
swerve off the road and run into a ditch, severely damaging the car. She also suffered some
injuries. She has been able to identify the owner of the goat in that village. The Federal Road
Safety officers who came around helped her tow the vehicle to the FRSC office. A young
apprentice mechanic in Mechanic Olu’s office told Miss Face that his Oga did not change the
brake pads but only added brake fluid but begged that she keep the information confidential.
Her injuries have even yet to heal completely. The owner of the goat is Mama Kwali and she is
very poor. Miss Fyne Face has sued Mechanic Olu for negligence and claimed damages.  
Miss Face (the claimant/Plaintiff) wants to give evidence that the Mechanic charged her
Fifty thousand Naira (N50,000). Is this evidence relevant? WRITE THE ISSUE ONLY.
Is the evidence of the mechanic charging miss face fifty thousand naira relevant as grounds for
claiming and awarding damages ?
Applicability of evidence
Evidence in facts in issues or relevant shall be admissible unless excluded by the act or any other
act.
Sources of law of evidence
Constitution
Other legislations, such as
 Section 26(3) of the Ndlea act : In any trial for an offence under this Act, the fact that an
accused person is in possession of pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot
satisfactorily account and which is disproportionate to his known source of income, or
that he had at or about the time of the alleged offence obtained an accretion to his
pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, may be
proved and may be taken into consideration by the Federal High Court as corroborating
the testimony of any witness in such trial.
 The child’s right act enforcement procedure rule 2015 : order 18 provides for evidence
order 19 provides for expert evidence
 NAFDAC ACT : Section 26(2) : In a judicial proceeding for an offence under this Act or
any regulation made under it, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act or depending
on the venue, the Criminal Procedure Code shall, with such modifications as the
circumstance may require, apply in respect of such matter to the same extent as they
apply to the trial of offences generally
 Section 2 of the ACJA : The prosecution may at any time before the judgement file and
serve notice of additional evidence.
 Section 60 of the independent corrupt practices and other related offences commission
act: Evidence of custom or convention inadmissible- in any proceedings under this act,
evidence shall not be admissible to show that any such gratification mentioned in this act
is customary in any profession trade, vocation or calling or on a social occasion.
 Section 26(3) of the Ndlea act : In any trial for an offence under this Act, the fact that an
accused person is in possession of pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot
satisfactorily account and which is disproportionate to his known source of income, or
that he had at or about the time of the alleged offence obtained an accretion to his
pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, may be
proved and may be taken into consideration by the Federal High Court as corroborating
the testimony of any witness in such trial.
 The child’s right act enforcement procedure rule 2015 : order 18 provides for evidence
order 19 provides for expert evidence
 NAFDAC ACT : Section 26(2) : In a judicial proceeding for an offence under this Act or
any regulation made under it, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act or depending
on the venue, the Criminal Procedure Code shall, with such modifications as the
circumstance may require, apply in respect of such matter to the same extent as they
apply to the trial of offences generally
 Section 2 of the ACJA : The prosecution may at any time before the judgement file and
serve notice of additional evidence.
  Section 60 of the independent corrupt practices and other related offences commission
act: Evidence of custom or convention inadmissible- in any proceedings under this act,
evidence shall not be admissible to show that any such gratification mentioned in this act
is customary in any profession trade, vocation or calling or on a social occasion.
 Case law : Dickinson and kubbo, Stanbic ibtc vs longrich
Admissibility of evidence
How is evidence admissible: admissibility is based on relevancy.
It is based on declaration by statute, once a statute has given an evidence to be admissible then it
would be admissible. NB: state laws are not admissible.
Relevancy
In relevancy of evidence it would be admissible on the facts in issues and non facts in issue but
declared relevant by the evidence act. The fact in issues of the case is the basis for admissibility
if evidence for example if the fact in issue is “ the trial of jumbo for the murder of binti” the
evidence act in section one states that the evidence that would be admissible on the basis of
relevancy would be any evidence that supports the facts in issue.
The second part of the section 1 when it is logically probative or disapprobative of matters. The
logical reasoning for admitting evidence is done following the guideline provided for in the
evidence act from section 4-13.
Section 4: Facts which, though not in issue. arc so connected with a fact in issue as to form
part or the same transaction. are relevant. whether they occurred at the same time and place
or at different times and places. This simply implies that facts which may not be in issues but if
such facts are related to the facts in issue then they are relevant. The judge in the case of
Akingbade vs Elemosho held that evidence of other conveyances as to how the land relate with
the land in dispute was divided was relevant.
Section 5: Facts which arc the occasion, cause or effect. immediate or otherwise, of relevant
facts. or facts in issue. or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or
which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction. arc relevant. This implies
that facts by which the facts in issue arise or occur or form the basis of their occurrence are
relevant
Section 6: (I) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact
in issue or relevant fact.
(2) The conduct. whether previous or subsequent to any proceeding-
(a) of any party to any proceeding, or an agent to such party, in reference to such suit or
proceeding or in reference to any fact in issue in it or a fact relevant to it; and
(b) of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding. is relevant in such
proceedings if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(3) The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements, unless those statements
accompany and explain acts other than statements. but this provision shall not affect the
relevance of statements under any other section.
(4) When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence
and hearing which affects such conduct is relevant.
To break it down in simpler terms this section simply implies that when an act or omission is
done the motive of the person behind such act or omission would be considered to be a relevant
evidence. It also states that such conduct can be previous or subsequent. In the case of R vs
senior it was held that a man who was having the means and was capable to provide who had the
means to provide medical assistance and aid to a sick child and refused to because of religious
beliefs had the motive to cause death. The conduct of a person is also relevant and also any
statement made by another person whose conduct is relevant or in his presence is also relevant.
Section 7: Facts (1) necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact;
(b) which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact;
(c) which establish the identity of anything 01" person whose identity is relevant:
(d) which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened: or
(e) which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted. arc relevant in so
far as they are necessary for that purpose.
This simply implies that any fact that establishes the identity of a person relavnt to the fact in
issue or any fact that supports the fact in issues or the trancactions of the parties is relevant. In
the case of Obasanjo vs Seaview investment Ltd the court held that a fact whiochb introduces a
fcat in issue is relevant not withstanding the fact that such fact may be scandalous.
Section 8: Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired
together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. anything said, done or written by any aile
of such persons in execution or furtherance of their common intention, after the time when such
intention was first entertained by one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons
believed 10 be so conspiring, for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as well
as [or the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. (2) Notwithstanding
subsection (I) of this section, statements made by individual conspirators as to measures taken in
the execution or furtherance of such common intention are not deemed to he relevant as such as
against any conspirator, except those by whom or in whose presence such statements arc made.
(J! Evidence of acts or statements deemed to be relevant under this section may not be given
until the court is satisfied that, apart from them, there arc prima facie grounds Ior believing the
existence of the conspiracy to which they relate.
Admissibility of documentary evidence

Section 258 (1) describes documents in the following classes

 (a) books, maps, graphs, drawings …any matter ..upon any substance ..which may be used for
the purpose of recording that matter,

(b) any disc , tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data ..are embodied so
as to be capable of being reproduced from it

(c) any film, negative, tape….in which visual images are embodied ..and

(d) any device by means of which information is recorded stored or retrievable including
computer output.

The two main types of documents are public documents and private documents

1. Public documents are identified in Section 102 of the EA 2011—document of public

interest issued or published by a public body or otherwise connected with public business. A
public record that government department is required to keep, generally open to public to view.
Section 102 EA 2011 lists them as

a) Official acts or records of official acts of

i. Sovereign authority
ii. Official bodies and tribunals
iii. public officers, legislative, judicial and executive
b) public records kept in Nigeria of private documents
c) Examples are
i. Statute Courts keep records, S122 Evidecne Act 2011 proven by a publication by
government Prinitng Press and the LG Byelaw made by Local Government
ii. Public registers—entries in public registers—birth certificate, death certificate,
marriage certificate
iii. Certificate of incorporation official maps, histories, surveys, records proof of
types of public document
d) Judgments of courts are public records. Evidence by production of an offica copy of
certified copy. A document of record of a foreign court is a public record evidenced by
the seal of the foreign court or by examination
For a document to be regarded as a public it must
i. Have been have been drawn up by a public official in the course of his official
duty
ii. Public inquiry
iii. Purpose of public use or intended for public use
iv. Accessible as of right to the public

Private document is not defined by the Evidence Act 2011 but Section 103 provides a converse
that “any document that is not public document is a private document. Any document that does
not qualify as a public document is therefore a private document.
Section 258 thus included computer generated evidence as admissible in court.

Since documents speak for themselves, the inclusion of computer generated evidence (CGE) as
admissible documents is reasonable since it speaks for itself whether handwritten, typed or
automatedly scribbled such as is done by computer.

A document that is put in evidence for the purpose of identification is real evidence and not
documentary evidence. Documentary evidence is that which contains information upon which
the court can rely to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a fact that is relevant to a fact in issue.
The SLoria Kanrotmwa Gomwalk (2015) LPELR-24462 CA when it replaces document in 258
(1) to include (a) books…(b) any disc, tape…(c) … any film,

1) Kubor & Anor v Dickson & Ors (2012) LPELR 9817(SC). The appellants challenged the
election and return of the first respondent as the governor of Bayelsa State in the
February 11 2012 governorship election. The documents tendered by the appellants
included a computer printout of the online version of The Punch newspaper and another
document from the website of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC),
the third respondent in the appeal. The electronic version of The Punch was admitted and
marked as Exhibit D and the document from INEC's website was admitted and marked
Exhibit L. However, the appellants did not satisfy the conditions provided in Section
84(2) of the Evidence Act with respect to the admissibility of electronic evidence. On
appeal, the respondents claimed that, since Exhibits D and L were public documents, only
certified copies thereof were admissible in evidence; the documents were inadmissible as
evidence without satisfying the conditions set out in Section 84(2) of the Evidence Act.
Decision: SCN agreed with the respondents that the appellants did not have witness to
testify before tendering the documents so there was no opportunity to lay the necessary
foundations for their admission as e-documents under section 84 of the Evidence Act,
2011. RATIO. 'a party that seeks to tender in evidence computer generated document
needs to do more than just tendering same from the bar. Evidence in relation to the use
of the computer must be called to establish the conditions set out under section 84(2) of
the Evidence Act 2011.'
2) b) Hon. Henry Seriake Dickson v Chief Timipre Sylva & 3 ors ( 2016) LPELR
41257(SC). An appeal against the judgement of the lower court which overturned the
verdict on an issue raised in the trial court. ISSUE: The issue was whether gadgets
required to play a DVD needed to be certified in addition to the certification of the gadget
that produced the video contained in the DVD. The SCN was to decide whether the Court
of Appeal was not wrong in law when it held that the certification of the computers used
was sufficient and that it was not necessary under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to
certify the computers sought to be used to play the contents of the certified exhibit in the
open? HELD: The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the lower court. RATIO.
when the gadget that produced the video have been certified there need not be a
certification of the gadget required to play the gadget in open court.
 3) c) Brila Energy LTD v FRN(2018) JELR 39519 (CA)where the appellant was convicted
by the court on fraud based on evidence generated by the computer. The appellant
contended the admissibility of the computer evidence. The court rejected the appellants
arguments in favour of the respondent. RATIO:
4) d) Daudu V FRN (2018) 10 NWLR (PT 1626) 169 where the court was to determine
whether a preliminary objection is filed only against the hearing of an appeal and not
against one or more grounds of appeal. The appellant had been convicted by a High court
and dissatisfied he filed four grounds of appeal. The respondent raised preliminary
objection to the grounds of appeal which the court of Appeal upheld. Appellant
approached the SCN to determine whether (1) the Court of Appeal was correct in law
when it affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court placing the onus of proving his
innocence in the 75 counts of money laundering on the appellant? (2) the Court of Appeal
was correct in law when it affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court that the
prosecution had established all the ingredients of the offence of money laundering against
the appellant? HELD: no merit in the appeal and it was accordingly dismissed.

Certified True Copy (CTC) must meet the following criteria

a) legal fees paid

b) certified copy of the original document
c) certificate subscribed showing Date and Title of the official
d) sealed in cases where the official is entitled to use a seal or stamp

There are three roots to admissibility

 Admissibility based on relevance
 Admissibility by declaration of statute
 Conditional admissibility
Computer based evidence: The Supreme Court decision in Kubor & Anor v Dickson & Ors
(2012) LPELR 9817(SC) (a) recognizes and endorses the use of electronic evidence in Nigeria,
and (b) it reiterates the conditions for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
In determining the admissibility of electronic evidence, the court looked beyond the general
conditions for admissibility of evidence in civil and criminal trials, referring to Section 84(1) that
provides that in any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer is
admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible,
if it is shown that the conditions in Section 84(2) are satisfied. The four conditions for
admissibility of computer-generated evidence under Section 84(2) (a-d) are
(a) Regular use
(b) Regular supply
(c) Operating properly
(d) Ordinary course of activity

(a) Regular use. the statement sought to be tendered was produced by the computer during a
period when it was in regular use;
(b) Regular supply. during that period of regular use, information of the kind contained in the
document or statement was supplied to the computer;
(c ) Operating properly. the computer was operating properly during that period of regular use;
and
(d) Ordinary course of activity. the information contained in the statement was supplied to
the computer in the ordinary course of its normal use
Attorney general of the federation vs Princewill Ugonna Anuebunwa You do not need
certificate for computer evidence such as a typewriter
Similar facts evidence
These are facts, which are irrelevant to facts in issue, but which become relevant under special
grounds or conditions. See s. 12 EA 2011. The evidence from such generally irrelevant facts,
similar to the facts in issue, is called, Similar Facts evidence. Evidence of similar facts is
inadmissible for the following reasons:
a) Such evidence is irrelevant and as such inadmissible by virtue of S. 1 EA. As there is no
logical link between similar fact evidence and the fact in issue sought to be proved.
b) Admissibility of evidence of similar fact will be contrary to the presumption of innocence: S.
36 (5) CFRN 1999.
c) Inadmissibility of evidence of similar fact saves the time of the court, as otherwise irrelevant
issues may be introduced to divest attention of court: Harris v. DPP, (supra) & R. v Thomas,
(supra).
d) Evidence of similar facts especially in criminal matters tends to bring in prejudicial evidence
against the accused: Akaninwo v Nsirim, (2008) All FWLR pt. 410, p 610 & R. v Thomas,
(supra).
e) It brings in collateral facts into evidence and evidence of the similar fact is excluded on the
grounds of remoteness, fairness: S. 1 EA, Yusuf v Adegoke, (2007) All FWLR pt. 385, p 384.
In Makin v Attorney General, NSW, (1894) AC 57, Lord Esher stated the general rule
against evidence of similar facts when he said: ‘It is undoubtedly not competent for the
prosecution to adduce evidence tending to show that the accused has been guilty of criminal
acts other than those covered by the indictment, for the purpose of leading to the conclusion
that he is a person liable from his criminal conduct or character to have committed the
offence for which he is been tried. On the other hand, the mere fact that the evidence adduced
tends to show the commission of other crimes does not render it inadmissible, if it is relevant
to an issue before the jury, and it may be so relevant if it bears upon the question whether the
acts alleged to constitute the crime charged in the indictment were designed or accidental, or
to rebut a defence which would otherwise be open to the accused.’ Although the general rule is
that evidence of similar facts is inadmissible, there are some exceptions. Some are expressly
provided for in the Evidence Act 2011. Others are of common law origin applicable to Nigeria
by virtue of s. 3 EA. The exceptions are:
(i) When there is a question whether an act was accidental or done with a particular
knowledge or intention the fact that such act forms part of a similar occurrence in
each of which the person doing the act was concerned is relevant. S. 12 EA allows
evidence of similar facts to be admissible in rebuttal, if the defence is a denial of a
charge, asserting accident or want of mens rea: s. 12 EA, Makin v Attorney
General for New South Wales, (1894) AC 57; Al-Hassan v COP, (1944) 10
WACA 238;R. v Adeniji, (1937) 3 WACA 185, Thomas v. COP, (1949) 12
WACA 490
(ii) When evidence of scienter or guilty knowledge is required in charge of
possession of stolen property: s. 36 EA. Here, wherever any person is tried for
receiving stolen property, knowing the property to be stolen, & intending to prove
his guilty knowledge in the crime, there may be given in evidence at any stage of
the proceeding the fact that: a) In the past 12 months stolen property were found
on the defendant: s. 36(1)(a) EA. b) Within the last 5 years, defendant was
convicted for fraud or dishonesty: s. 36(1)(b) EA. 22 But such similar fact
evidence would not be led in respect of matter in s. 36(1)(b) EA, unless defendant
is given prior notice of prosecution’s intention to so proceed: s. 36(2) EA, R. v
Griliopoulous, (supra).
(iii) When evidence is to show common origin. Where the facts in issue are of a
common origin with similar facts, such similar facts with the present facts in issue
are admissible: Manchester Brewery Ltd. v. Coombs, 82 LT 347; in which it was
held that evidence of the fact that the brewers had sold good or bad beer to other
customers could be admissible, if all the supplies were from the same brewery,
i.e. from a common source. Note: This is a common law principle on admissibility
of similar fact evidence.
(iv) When evidence is to show that the facts in issue are the systematic conduct of the
defendants, evidence of such similar facts to show system are admissible: To
show system: R. v Smith, (1915) 11 Cr. App. R 229 & Makin v Attorney General
New South Wales, (supra). Here, more than one incident would be required to
sustain show of similar facts evidence.
(v) When the abnormal facts in issue have to be proved as proceeding from a
peculiar propensity, similar facts are admissible: R. v Straffen, (1952) 2 QB 911.
Here, defendant was in custody pending his trial for murder by strangulation of
two young girls, but without sexually assaulting his victims. He escaped from
custody, & within three months he was arrested, again for the murder of a third
young girl by strangulation but without sexually assaulting his victim. In the trial
for the third murder, evidence of similar unique facts from the previous two
 murder cases was held cogent, as it undeniably revealed the defendant to have an
abnormal and peculiar propensity to strangle young girls in the manner of facts in
issue.
Note: Similar facts evidence is also admissible in an action for damages by domestic animals,
as well as, in facts, which would tend to affect the credibility of witness in cross-examination:
s. 233 EA 2011.

Hearsay
When trying to deduce what hearsay is firstly the characteristics of hearsay has to be present to
establish what hearsay is, however hearsay first and foremost has to pass the first test in section
1 which provides for relevance
Section 39 is talking about by the statements by people who are other no the witness, but must be
made by the following people
a) who is dead
(b) who cannot be found
(c) who has become incapable of giving evidence; or
(d) whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the
circumstances of the case appears to the court unreasonable.
Who ever is being presented as a witness is going to testify against the four classes of people
provided. Section 40/50 are not exceptions to the hearsay they are just conditions
Section 40 provides for a dying declaration and it states that if a statement made by a person who
is at the danger of his death, a witness can give evidence provided that the person who made the
statement was in danger of approaching death. In the case of Okoro vs the state the supreme
court held that for that for a statement to qualify for a dying declaration that the statement must
be made by a person when he is dying or believes he is approaching death as a result of injury
which caused his death and such statements are admissible against anyone in situations where the
cause of death is in issue.
Section 42 states that A statement of a dead person in 39 a if the person made the statement was
made in the ordinary course of business , would be made admissible, also if the person who
made the statement cannot be found, not being capable of giving evidence or whose attendance
cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense
Opinion evidence
The general rule is that a witness is not allowed to give opinion as the existence and non
existence to the fact in issue. The opinion of experts and the opinion of non experts. Section 67
of the evidence act. A witness is only going to testify to what he has seen, heard and perceived,
and not an opinion. It is the business of the witness to state the fact as he has observed and it is
the duty of the court to draw and inference. In ANPP vs Usman the court od appeal held that as
a general rule of evidence the opion of the witness is inadmissible, they are meant to state what
they are being experience they opinion is not admissible, the opinion is regarded to as a source of
confusion.
It would lead to confusion Nagebu company ltd vs Unity bank
It would amount to usurpation to the function of the co
It would amount to lead to usurpation to the function of the expert
An expert is a person who is skilled in the field in which he is given evidence, he is a witness
who come to give an opinion of a fact or a fact in issue within the area of his expertise. An expert
must pertain to the a subject whose technology is beyond common experience, this testimony
must be of benefit to the trial of fact, this testimony must be a benefit to a trial of fact, to
determine the true fact to understand complicated evidence.
Be based on material from admissible evidence of a type that an expert may reasonably rely on
to form an opinion.
Be made by someone who has special knowledge experience, education and a skill to qualify as
an expert
In a sense be limited to a specific area of knowledge , in the case of National Justice CIA
Nivara SA vs Crudential assurance company limited. Creswell J described the role expected
by an expert witness to be; expert evidence presented to the court should be, seen to be the
independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies.
 An expert witness should provide independence assistance to the court by way of
objective unbiased opinion, in relation to matter within his expertise ….
 An expert witness in the high court should never assume the role of an advocate….
 An expert witness should sate the fact or the assumption upon which his opinion is based,
he should not omit to consider. He should not omit to consider a material fact which
could detract for his opinion.
 An expert witness should make is clear when a particular question or issue falls outside
his expertise.
 If after exchange of report an expert witness changes his view on a particular matter
having regard the other side expert report or for any other reason such change of view
should be communicated through legal representatives, to the other side without delay.
It is not enough for an expert to give an opinion and a mere conclusion leaving out the criteria
upon which such criteria upon which such opinion and conclusion are based. Where a team of
two or more experts in different but related field of study jointly undertake a research project and
jointly produce a report, that report tendered by one of them is admissible.
The fact that the expert tendering the report is not as qualified as the one called as the witness,
in the area he is being cross examined can as best go the question of weight to be attached to the
report and not the admissibility of the report. This would not apply when there is a clear division
of about Ogiali vs Shell petroleum development company ltd 1 NWLR PT 480 {1997}, some
argued that expert evidence be believed with cautioned
Opinion as to foreign law: Where there is a question as to foreign law, the opinions of experts
who in their profession arc acquainted with such law are admissible evidence of it. though such
experts may produce to the court books which they declare La be works of authority upon the
foreign law in question, which books the court, having received all necessary explanations from
the expert, may construe for itself: This section to implies that the when an expert gives an expert
to foreign law and refers to certain books and documents, the court may not look at those
documents and draw a conclusion for itself. An expert in foreign law. In the absence of any
contrary evidence Nigerian courts would assume that the law in a foreign country is the same as
Nigerian law, the onus of proving foreign law is on the party who asserts that the foregin law is
diffrnnet from Nigerian law. In the case of Ogunro vs Ogedembe, FSC succession of land in
Ghana no evidence was adduced the contract so the court as ut would treat sucession of land
in Nigeria. An expert in foreign law need not be a legal practitioner it would suffice that he has
the request experience knowledge and skill within the particular branch of foreign law, where a
bank manager was called as a witness . an expert to foreign may produce to the court books
which he declares to be works of authority upon the foreign law in question. Such books are
however constituted by the court after receiving all necessary explanation from experts.
Does the law permit an expert giving evidence to a Nigerian court,
Such books and article may become relevant under section 71 if they support or are inconsistent
with opinions of expert when such opinion is admissible
Opinions of expert in science or art, the expert must show special skill in such area of science or
art, he must confine his testimony to the matters in which he is skilled, see the case of
Opinion as to native law and custom: opinion of traditional rulers, chiefs and other persons,
having special knowledge of the customary law and customs and any book and manuscript
recognized as legal authority, by people indigenous to the locality where the law and customs
applies are admissible. Ss 70 and 68(1)
Section 72- 76 deals with opinions of non-expert

CHRACTER EVIDNECE
Generally in criminal proceeding evidence of bad character is irrelevant. Section 77 defines
characters as In sections 78 to 82, the expression "character" means reputation as
distinguished from disposition, and except as mentioned in those sections, evidence may be
given only of general reputation. and not of particular acts by which reputation or disposition
is shown. Reputation It means what is known for disposition is what the person is likely to do.
In the case of R vs Rowton 1865 LECA 520 , in DPP vs Jones 1962 AC435. Section 82(1)
Except as provided in this section, evidence of the fact that a defendant is of bad character is
inadmissible in criminal proceeding. This section simply upholds the principle that everyone is
innocent until proven guilty section 36 of the 1999 CFRN.
SECTION 82(2) The fact that a defendant is of bad character is admissible- (a) when the bad
character of the defendant is a fact in issue; or (h) when the defendant has given evidence of his
good character. The evidence of a character is admissible when the offence being charged for
goes as deep to define the character of the convicted. Rougues and Vagabonism goes as far to
determine the character of the person.
Section 82(3)A defendant may be asked questions 10 show that he is of bad character in the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph (c) of the proviso to section 180(g). The evidence of bad
character can be given to disprove the claims of the good character. In the case of Dean vs
African newspaper limited 1990 3NLW, the supreme court held that where in a proceeding, the
plaintiff claims to be of good reputation the evidence of his previous convictions becomes
relevant. In Maxwell vs Dpp, the appellant was convicted for the manslaughter of a woman by
using on her an instrument for the intent to procure miscarriage, the court held that when one has
been charged and acquitted of an offence question as regarding the previous convictions would
not admitted.
For evidence of good character, it is admissible in criminal cases.
Admission
Admission can be by conduct
Formal admission
Informal admission
Summary of the judges rule
Rule 1: talks about the investigation process and it basically connotes that the police may take
any inference in conducting and investigation from any one whether or not the person may be a
suspect to the offence
Rule 2 talks about the cautioning of a person when the police must have concluded and have a
hint that such person may be tagged as a suspect and in cautioning the person must do so in
certain ways
Rule 3: this rule also talks about cautioning but in these sense in relative to the questioning
process of the police, this includes informing the suspect of his rights and also the fact that he is
not compelled to say anything and if he actually does would be recorded.
Rule 4: this rule states the procedure of taking down a written statement, the rule laid down
different procedures of taking down a written statement and also states that the procedures and
the statement taken down can be subject to corrections this forms the fourth rule of the judges
rule.
Rule 5: this rule states that if any other person makes a statement in concurrent with the same
offence the suspect is being charged with that such statement shall be given to the suspect in an
original copy form and any utterances be made in accordance to rule 3
Rule 6: re emphasizes and maintains that the rule shall be adhered to whether or not such person
may be police officer
Relationship of the ACJA and confession
The judges rules can be said to be those guidelines built up by the common law to enhance the
making of voluntary confessional statements, these rules were made following certain
prescriptions by the common law and the common law has found its way into our domestic
municipal laws as a matter of fact is one of the sources of our laws, the major purpose of the
judges rule would be to abolish the use of threat and force in obtaining confessional statements.
The ACJA is one of the modern laws in Nigeria and as a matter of fact it has been implemented
and has been adopted in 29 states with the FCT inclusive out of the 36 states in Nigeria. This
modern law has sought to ensure that the administration of criminal proceedings from the earliest
process of arrest and investigation are being organized and coordinated.
In the case of NNAJIOFOR V F.R.N  (2018) LPELR-434925 (CA), CHARLES V F.R.N
(2018)  LPELR – 434922(CA)The ACJA has provided for in section 15(4) and section 17(2) for
the recording of confessional statements electronically Section 15 (4) and 17(2) of ACJA
imposes a duty on public functionaries (Police officers and other officers of any law enforcement
agency) to record electronically on retrievable Video CD or such other audio visuals means, the
confessional statement of a suspect. The provisions are for the benefit of private citizens who are
suspected of committing crimes so as the enormous powers of the police and law
enforcement agencies may not be abused by intimidating them in the course of taking
their statements. On the other hand, it also protects law enforcements agencies from false
accusation of coercion in taking statements from suspects. The use of the word “May” in those
provisions is in that circumstance mandatory and not permissive. The court would interpret
“May” as mandatory where it is used to impose a duty upon a public functionary to be carried
out in a particular form or way for the benefit of a private citizen. Therefore, its non-
observance is fatal to the admission of the statements and failure to comply with its provision
renders such statements impotent and inadmissible.
Also in the case of  OLUWATOYIN V STATE (2018) LPELR – 44441 (CA) HELD:
Whenever a person is arrested with or without a warrant, volunteers to make a confessional
statement, the police officer shall ensure that the making or taking of such statement is recorded
in video and the said recording and copies thereof may be produced at the trial provided that in
the absence of video facility, the said statement shall be in the writing of the suspect or
his nominee and in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice who will endorse the
statement, where such counsel is present, willing and ready to so endorse.
HARRISON OWHORUKE V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(2015) LPELR – 24820 (SC)
HELD:
Confessional statements are most times beaten out of suspects, and the courts usually admit such
statements as counsel and the accused are unable to prove that the statement was not made
voluntarily. A fair trial presupposes that police investigation of crime for which the accused
person stands trial was transparent. In that regard it is time for safeguards to be put in place to
guarantee transparency. It is seriously recommended that confessional statements should only be
taken from suspect if and only if his counsel is present or in the presence of a legal practitioner.
Where this is not done such, a confessional statement should be rejected by the court. 

Judges rule
The judges rule has existed from its origin in the common law it has a history of the common
and has founc its way into the evidence act and the ACJA, the rule was brought in in the early
britsh as a reason of the admissibility of the confessional statement brought in from the police to
the court,. After so many public complain the judges then set out these rules to guide the
admission of confessional statement on the grounds of obtaining such statements through the use
of force or threat.The judges ruel emanates from section 4 of the police acts The police shall be
employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the
preservation of  law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all
laws and regulations with which they are  directly charged. And shall perform such military
duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under  the authority of this or
any other Act, the notion of the judges rule is that the court has the discretion to accept or rejct
any confessional statement but such rejection must be done in accrdanec to the breach of the
judges rule. the status of  Judges’ Rules in Nigeria was considered by the court in the case of
State v Edekere & 7 Ors. In this case, the accused  having made a statement to the police raised
an objection to its admission in evidence in the course of his trial on the  ground that he had not
been cautioned and that the signature beneath the caution which appeared on the statement was
not  his. He contended that since he had not been cautioned in accordance with the Judges` rules,
the statement was therefore  inadmissible. In overruling the objection, the court held that even if
the accused was not cautioned, which was not proved,  the breach does not itself make the
statement inadmissible, that only if the breach suggested that the statement might not  have been
made voluntarily that it would become inadmissible.