CORAM
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLAJIDE OLATAWURA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
OBA R.A.A. OYEDIRAN OF IGBONLA APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was a dispute as to where the next chief should come from in accordance with the law and custom of Ejuland.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that Native law and custom must be strictly proved and it will be unsafe to accept the statement of the only person asserting the existence of a custom as conclusive.
ISSUES
Whether the trial court was wrong to have rejected the certified true copy of the judgment of Kwara State High Court KWS/31/74 when tendered in evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant
RATIONES DECIDENDI
IMPORTANCE OF RELEVANCY AND PLEADING OF DOCUMENTS
“In a civil case a document must be relevant to be admissible. A document must also be pleaded to be admissible. I believe the law has always been that admissible evidence is relevant evidence and that evidence which is not ordinarily relevant is not admissible. (See Agunbiade v. Sasegbon (supra) and Torti v. Ukpabi (supra). I may add that even if the judgment or document herein had been admitted as an Exhibit, it would certainly be of no evidential value as it would obviously be irrelevant to the claims as well as to the parties before the court.” Per KUTIGI, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
The Queen, Ex parte Chief Lewis Ekpenga v. Chief Ozogula II (1962) 1 All NLR 265 ;(1962) 1 SCNLR 423Agunbiade v. Sasegbon (1968) NMLR 223 Torti v. Ukpabi (1984) 1 S.C. 370;(1984)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act