"Ordinarily wrongful exclusion or rejection of evidence will not result in the reversal of the judgment unless it is shown that the said excluded or rejected evidence would have affected the outcome thereof. This is in line with the provisions of the old Section 226 (2) of the Evidence Act reenacted as Section 251 (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. It provides thus: 251. (2) The wrongful exclusion of evidence shall not of itself be a ground for the reversal of any decision in any case if it shall appear to the Court on appeal that had the evidence excluded been admitted it may reasonably be held that the decision would have been the same. See AG KWARA STATE & ORS vs OLAWALE (1993) 1 NWLR (PT 272) 645 and GBAFE vs GBAFE (1996) 6 NWLR (PT 455) 428. The wrongful rejection of the acknowledgement document sought to be tendered by the Appellant in proof of his ownership did not preclude the possibility of calling any member of the Tata Akpang family to confirm the sale said to have been made to him but none was called."

Per OYEWOLE, J.C.A. IN UGOBO v. UGOBO & ORS CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43533(CA)