ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT IS ONE THING; WEIGHT IS ANOTHER THING

IN DETERMINING ADMISSIBILITY, IT IS RELEVANCY THAT MATTERS NOT CUSTODY

Admissibility is a rule of evidence and it is based on relevancy. See Sadau v. The State (1968) 1 All NLR 124: Ogonzee v. State (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 566. In determining the admissibility of evidence, the court will not consider how it was obtained; rather the court will take into consideration whether what is admitted is relevant to the issues being tried. See Igbinovia v. The State (1981) 2 SC 5. In Elias v. Disu (1962) 1 SCNLR 361, (1962) 1 All NLR 214, this court held that in determining admissibility of evidence, “it is the relevancy of the evidence that is important and not how the evidence was obtained.”

— N. Tobi JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)

DEMEANOR PLAYS LITTLE ROLE WHERE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED

The Supreme Court in Ohijinle vs. Adeagbo (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) 238 held that where documentary evidence have been admitted in evidence, demeanour plays an insignificant if any role. The documents tendered in the case should be used as a hanger with which to assess oral testimony.

TYPES OF INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (BY LAW OR BY FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS)

In a trial by a Judge alone, as in the case in hand, a distinction must be drawn between those cases where the evidence complained of is in no circumstances admissible in law and where the evidence complained of is admissible under certain conditions. In the former class of cases the evidence cannot be acted upon even if parties admitted it by consent and the court of appeal will entertain complaint on the admissibility of such evidence by the lower court (although the evidence was admitted in the lower court without objection); in the latter class of case, if the evidence was admitted in the lower court without objection or by consent of parties or was used by the opposite party (e.g. for the purpose of cross-examination) then it would be within the competence of the trial court to act on it and the court of appeal will not entertain any complaint on the admissibility of such evidence.

— Ogundare, JSC. Kossen v Savannah Bank (1995) – SC.209/89

RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY DISTINCTION

Relevancy and weight are in quite distinct compartments in our law of evidence. They convey two separate meanings in our adjectival law and not in any form of dovetail. In the order of human action or activity, in the area of the law of evidence, relevancy comes before weight. Relevancy, which propels admissibility, is invoked by the trial Judge immediately the document is tendered. At that stage, the Judge applies sections 6, 7, 8 and other relevant provisions of the Evidence Act to determine the relevance or otherwise of the document tendered. If the document is relevant, the Judge admits it, if all other aspects of our adjectival law are in favour of such admission. If the document is irrelevant, it is rejected with little or no ado. Weight comes in after the document has been admitted. This is at the stage of writing the judgment or ruling as the case may be. At that stage the Judge is involved in the evaluation or the evidence vis-a-vis the document admitted. While logic is the determinant of admissibility and relevancy, weight is a matter of law with some taint of facts.

— N. Tobi JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)

TWO CATEGORIES OF INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

It must be borne in mind that there are two categories of inadmissible evidence. Evidence that is absolutely inadmissible in law which is not within the competence of the parties to admit by consent or otherwise. It is a document which is by law inadmissible, see for example James v Mid Motors (1978) 11-12 SC 31; Minister v Azikiwe (1969) 1 All NLR 49; Kale v Coker (1982) 12 SC 252. The second class of inadmissible evidence is, for example, a document which is admissible in law but upon fulfilling certain conditions, parties may by consent admit it notwithstanding the conditions not being fulfilled e.g. the admission of unstamped instrument required to be stamped, see Etim v Ekpe (1983) 1 SC NLR 120, (1983) NSCC 86; Igbodim v Obianke (1976) 9-10 SC 179.

— Musdapher, JSC. Shittu & Ors. v Fashawe [2005] – SC 21/2001