One of the remnants of the appellants grouses is against the evidence proffered by PW1. They branded it as inadmissible hearsay. In our adjectival law, a witness is expected to testify on oath, or affirmation, on what he knows personally. Where a witness gives evidence on what another person told him about events, then it is not direct evidence which has acquired the nickname: hearsay or second hand evidence. In the view of the law, hearsay evidence can only be used to inform a Court about what a witness heard another say and not establish the truth of an event, see Section 37, 38 and 126 of the Evidence Act, 2011; (former Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 2004); Kasa v. State (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 344) 269; FRN v. Usman (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1301) 141; Theophilus v. State (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 423) 139; Doma v. INEC (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 297; Onovo v. Mba (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 391; Kakih v. PDP (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1430) 374; Ikpeazu v. Otti (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 38; Opara v A. G. Fed. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1569) 61.
— O.F. Ogbuinya, JCA. Impact Solutions v. International Breweries (2018) – CA/AK/122/2016