CHIEF SUNDAY EYO OKON OBONG VS PATRICK LEO EDET & ANOR
May 28, 2025R. O. IYERE V BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILL LTD
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (CA) 18181
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT CALABAR
Tue Dec 9, 2008
Suit Number: CA/C/125/2006
CORAM
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC
PARTIES
ELDER OKON AARON UDORO CHIEF ISAAC AARON UDORO CHIEF SUNDAY SAM AKPAN CHIEF OKON AKPANUNWA CHIEF MONDAY FRED ENWO CHIEF SUNDAY UDO AKPAN ESSIEN
THE GOVERNOR, AKWAIBOM STATETHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, AKSTHE COMM. FOR LOCAL GOVT. ANDCHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRSTRADITIONAL RULERS COUNCIL, ETINANNSOBOMIME DICKSON UMOETE
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, wherein the Appellant distilled some issues to be determined.
HELD
Appeal disallowed
ISSUES
Whether the Court below was right in holding that “photograph” which comes under the definition of “Document” in section 2(1) of the Evidence Act does not include a video cassette or tape? Whether the court below was right in declining exhibit “B” being played in proof or disproof of conflicting affidavit evidence when same was very relevant to the issues of fact before it? Whether the Court below was right in failing to look at an exhibit before it duly exhibited to the supporting affidavit and properly filed and served on the parties?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EJUSDEM GENERIC RULE-MEANING OF
“The ‘ejusdem generic’ rule means that in interpreting the provisions of a statute, general words which follow particular and specific words of the same nature as themselves, take their meaning from those specific words”.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES-LIMIT OF THE COURT THERETO
“A court of law is without power to import into the meaning of a word, clause or section of a statute something that it does not say”.
RULE OF INTERPRETATION-LITERAL RULE
“Indeed it is a corollary to the general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be added to or taken from a statute unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature intended something which it omitted to express.”
ISSUES-DETERMINING FACTOR-WHETHER COURTS CAN ACT ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
“A court can only determine an issue on legally admissible evidence. Courts have no discretion to act on evidence made inadmissible by the express provision of a statute even with the consent of the parties”.
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE-DUTY OF A COURT THERETO
“A court of law is expected to admit and act only on evidence which is admissible in law”.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT-CRITERIA GOVERNING ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT
“Three main criteria govern the admissibility of a document in evidence namely;
(1) Is it pleaded?
(2) Is it relevant to the inquiry being tried by the Court? And
(3) Is it admissible in law”.
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE-WHERE TENDERED-DUTY OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY- WHERE A PARTY FAILS TO OBJECT-DUTY OF THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO
“Whenever inadmissible evidence is tendered, it is the duty of the opposite party to immediately object to its admissibility, where the party fails to object, the Court may, in civil cases, reject such documents and must reject such evidence in criminal cases”.
CASES CITED
Ehuwa vs. Ondo State Independent Electoral CommissionOjukwu vs. Obasanjo (2004) 12 NWLR Part 886 p. 167|Okonji & 2 ors vs. Njokanma & 2 ors (1999) 14 NWLR Part 638 p.250.|Nigeria Customs Service vs. Bazuye (2006) 3 NWLR Part 967, 303.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act 1990|
