STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND IMAGINARY SCALE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Now, on the valuation of evidence by a trial court, the law is settled. See Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91 and Solomon v. Mogaji (1982) 11 SC 1. It is that before a court which evidence is adduced by the parties in a civil case comes to a decision as to which evidence it believes or accepts and which evidence it rejects, it should first of all put the totality of the acceptable testimony adduced by both parties on an imaginary scale; it would put the legal evidence adduced by the plaintiff on one side and that of the defendant on the other side and weigh them together. It will then see which is heavier, not by the number of the witnesses called by each party but by the quality or probative value of the testimony of those witnesses. See also Sha Jnr v. Kwan (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 670) 685. It is the pre-eminent duty of a trial court which saw and heard witnesses to evaluate the evidence and pronounce on their credibility or probative value and not the appellate court which neither heard the witnesses nor saw them to observe their demeanors in the witness box.

– Musdapher, J.S.C. Pinder v. North (2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

imaginary scale of justice

THE IMAGINARY SCALE OF JUSTICE – ANALYSE EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES

There is indeed a duty on the trial court to analyse the evidence of both sides of the dispute, gauge the credibility of the witnesses, ascertain whether or not grave contradictions exist in the evidence to warrant its belief or disbelief and then ultimately ascribe probative value to any piece of such evidence which the court deems deserving such value. This consideration of the evidence of the adversaries is a legal requirement which must be complied with by the trial Judge. The pendulum of the imaginary scale of justice must contain each and all of the competing sets of evidence, and wherever the balance tilts signifies that the set which has tilted the balance has more weight.

– Mohammed JCA. Rufukka v. Kurfi (1996)