Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
July 2, 2019 10:33 am
“This is moreso because by virtue of the combined effects of the provisions of Sections 147 (a) and 167 (c) of the Evidence Act, 2011 the Court's records is presumed in law to be authentic and regular. Any party who wishes to impeach the contents of the Court's record of proceedings is required by law to bring a motion on notice to that effect, accompanying the said motion with an affidavit with a certified true copy of the record annexed thereto, cite the portion of the record he wishes to impeach or challenge and state in his/her affidavit the contrary facts which were (in his/her opinion) wrongly substituted with the facts contained in the Court's record. See the case of OKORO & ORS v OKORO (2009) LPELR - 8413, pg. 30, wherein His Noble Lordship, GALADIMA, JCA (as he then was) at page 80, in his contribution to the lead judgment, expatiated as follows:
“A trial Court is at liberty to use evidence in its file or record to arrive at justice, especially when the new evidence is inconsistent with previous evidence in the Court's file by the same party given at the interlocutory stage without the party having the presence of mind to explain the contradictions or inconsistencies. The interest of the Court at all times must be to do justice and that should not vary at any stage of proceeding from interlocutory to substantive stage. See Ejuetami V. Olaiya (2002) FWLR (Pt. 88) 955 at 981 D - G; Sodimu V. NPA (1975) ANLR 151 at 156; & Nigerian Navy V. Garrick (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 969) 69.” per OREDOLA, J.C.A (Pp. 11-16, paras. F-B).”
- PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. IN COLLINS COMMERMEX NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR VS SKYE BANK PLC
APPEAL NO: CA/L/754/16
LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: LER[2019] CA/L/754/16
