"The CW1, I re-state was the witness of the appellants. The fact that he attended Court on the basis of a subpoena does not change that fact. He was listed as witness No. 2 of the appellant in its list of witnesses (see page 6 of the record). He was not declared a hostile witness. In Odi v. Iyala (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 875) 283, 308 Tobi JSC, stated the position of the law in that regard as follows: "If a witness called by a party gives evidence against that party, the evidence will be regarded as one against interest."

See also Ikeni v. Efamo (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 446) 64, Elewuju v. Onisaodu (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt.647) 95 and Okoya v. Santilli (1994) 4 SCNJ (11) 333, 375, where the Supreme Court held that a party guarantees the reliability of his witness and must take the result of the evidence of his witness. Appellant is therefore bound by the evidence of CW1 quoted above. With all due respect to learned silk for the appellant, his spirited efforts to discredit the evidence of CW1 are but laboring in vain. As I have already stated, CW1 was not declared a hostile witness. No effort was made by senior counsel in that regard.

In Odi V. Iyala supra 308 Tobi, JSC stated "Where a witness called by a party gives evidence against his interest, our adjectival law requires the party to urge the Court to declare him a hostile witness for purposes of cross examination. This is to enable the party discredit the evidence of the witness and reject the evidence." That was not done and so appellant is stuck with the evidence of CW1."

Per EKANEM, J.C.A. IN HAPPY LAND HAPPY WORLD LTD v. UNION BANK & ORS CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43564(CA)