Admissibility Of Evidence Generally In Nigeria

Admissibility; the quality or state of being allowed to be entered into evidence in a hearing, trial or other official proceedings.

Evidence is something that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; this might be testimony, documentary and tangible object.

According to James B. Thayer, in his book titled Presumptions and the Law of Evidence 3 Have. L. Rev 141,142 (1889) he defines evidence as thus:

“Evidence is any matter of fact which is furnished to a legal tribunal, otherwise than by reasoning or reference what is noticed without proof, as the basis of inference in ascertaining some other matter of fact”.

Evidence is a means by which inference maybe drawn from a logical existence of fact which will make such evident or plain.

Whether or not a particular fact can be proved depends on the evidences before the court and also whether or not there are admissible and if it will lead to just determination of the case, because the end product of law is justice.

A fact in issue, which must be proved in a civil case on the balance of probability and in criminal case beyond reasonable doubt can only be prove by evidences presented to the court by parties. This goes further to state how important evidence is to a case; it is the life wire of a case and also the oxygen of breath in a particular case.

For any piece of evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant to the fact in issue. The important of evidence was shown by the provision of the Evidence Act 2011, Section 1 state thus:

“Evidence maybe given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of very fact in issue and such other facts as here after declare to be relevant, and of no others:

1. The court may exclude evidence of facts, though relevant or deemed to be relevant to the issue, appears to be too remote to be material in the circumstances of the case: and
2. This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force.

This provision of the Evidence Act makes it applicable that evidence maybe given of the existence or non-existence of a fact but relevancy is the key word here. Such relevancy may-be based on reasoned or logic. In OGU .V. M. T. & M. C. S. LTD (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1249)345 CA, The court held that “ordinarily, the admissibility of evidence is governed by the provision of section 6 of the evidence Act (now Section 1 of the evidence Act 2011) once a piece of evidence is relevant it is admissible in evidence irrespective of how it was obtained.

What the Court illustrated in the above stated case is that admissibility of evidence is governed by relevancy. An evidence would be considered if it relevant to the fact in issue before the Court. The major role of evidence in Court is to make sure that justice is attained, so any rejection by the Court in a proceeding should be followed by proper explanation on the reason/reasons why it was rejected to avoid the breach of natural justice of fair hearing.

Section 4 of Evidence Act deals with relevance of facts; the fact may not be in issue, but are so connected with the fact in issue, the Act makes them relevant. In Jolayomi V Olaoye (1999) 10 NWLR (PT. 624) 600 CA, the Court in interpreting Section 7 of the old Evidence Act now Section 4 stated that the trial Court was right when it went beyond the 1931 settlement to know the essential situation before them.

In that case the Court had to go extra length to consider historical background beyond 1931 to determine who was entitled to present candidate to fill any vacancy in the Ejemu Alaron chieftaincy stool of Arandun, also on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court affirm the position of the lower Court.

Though where an evidence was improperly obtained by the any person or agencies, the manner in which it was obtained would not come to question during the admissibility of such evidence rather whether or not it is relevant and when it is found to be relevant, it will be admissible not minding the mode at which it was obtained, in Ogu V. M.T & M.C.S Ltd (supra). The Court would consider the probative value, the importance, relevancy and gravity of such evidence.

In admissibility of evidence, Section 16 of Evidence Act has given credence to admissibility of customs in as much as such custom has been judicially noticed or could be prove by existence of evidence, one thing to note here is that once a Superior Court of record has acknowledge the existence of a particular custom, the Courts below are bound to follow the principles laid, that is called Doctrine of stare-decisi, the issue of Igiobe in Edo state has been well acknowledge by the Court in different cases, for example in Idehen V. Idehen, and Osunla V. Osunla,it means such custom is now judicially noticed, evidence as to existence of such custom will be admissible any time before the Courts in Nigeria. Where the said custom has not been judicially noticed, it is on the party alleging such to prove its existence before it could be admissible in evidence in Agwazim V. Ejivumerwerhaye (2001) FWLR (PT. 78) 125 CA,the Court of Appeal in interpreting Section 14(1) of the old Evidence Act now Section 16(2) held that “Customary law marriage like every customary law has to be proved by the party alleging its existence because the law regards it as a fact, unless it passes the notoriety test and judicial notice is taken of the existence of it.”

Although, generally hearsay evidence is not admissible to prove the existence or non-existence of fact in issue and this is guided by Section 37 Evidence Act, in Ibeneme V. Awolabi & Ors (2014) LPELR-23541(CA) ) the Court stated that it cannot act on evidence founded on hearsay and speculation, no matter how sordid it sounds to win sympathy

S. Adesheila, Esq.