Statement On Oath and Affidavit: The Distinction. By Okoko Ayezu Tamarapreye

The form of an Affidavit is well stated in the Evidence Act whereas there is no law that states that the Statement on Oath must conform to the form as required of Affidavit stated in the Evidence Act.This point has been given credence by the court in the case of SAMUEL LAMBERT & ANOR vs CHIEF A.S.B.C.OKUJAGU(2015)ALL FWLR(PART808)Pp 665-666 paras E-A thus:

“…it is therefore very certain that even the rules of court admit that affidavit and statement of witness on oath are distinct and different from the other.The form of an affidavit under the Evidence Act is well specified by law.See section 117 and 118 of the Evidence Act 2011.There is no law that specified that all sworn documents or Oaths must comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act as relates to affidavit.It is therefore not a valid argument to say that sworn deposition or statement of witness under the civil procedure rules must accord with the form of an affidavit…”

I have in the court  room seen legal practitioners make heavy weather as to the fact that the Statement on Oath must be signed by the deponent in the presence of the Commissioner of Oaths.Some of them go as far as asking questions such as:”You signed this oath in your lawyers office?or “Where did you depose to this oath?”and when the witness says he signed it in the lawyers office they make heavy weather out of it.

From the little law that I know,the statement on oath unlike the affidavit which derives its force once signed before the Commissioner of oaths, the Statement on Oath derives its force when it is adopted by the witness in the witness box.Little wonder a party may file statement on oath for three witness and end up calling just one witness whose statement on oath is then adopted in the witness box.

Furthermore,while the Affidavit should be in numbered paragraphs as provided for in the Evidence Act,the Statement on Oath need not be in numbered paragraphs.Infact,it can be in prose form.

Some have also argued that the Statement on Oath shall not contain extraneous matters,by way of objection,prayer or legal argument or conclusion.This argument and others above have been laid to rest by the court in SAMUEL LAMBERT& ANOR vs CHIEF A.S.B.C OKUJAGU(supra) thus:

“…the innovation of filing written statements on oath of witnesses to be called in a civil case is a very good proactive and progressive innovation of our learned drafts- men. The import is not to clone an affidavit or set up parallel affidavits evidence.The import is to reduce the time expended in taking notes from witnesses in court and by extension,reduce the stress of the trial judges whose lot it is within our jurisdiction and adjudicatory clime to record in long hand viva voce evidence of witnesses. The rules of the High Court do not intend to encrust the written statement on oath with the formal garb of an affidavit as tailored by Section 107 to 120 of the Evidence Act 2011.We must therefore be watchful not to upload written statements on oath simply devised by the civil procedure rules with the burden required to be borne by an affidavit under the Evidence Act.”

In conclusion,one can not help but conclude that there exists credible distinction between an Affidavit and a Written Statement on Oath.

By Okoko Ayezu Tamarapreye: zuaye_mara@yahoo.com 08063695554