• D16, CBN Qurts, Koma Close, Area11, Garki Abuja
  • lawdome26@gmail.com
  • +234(8050985434)

Make an Appointment

Edit Template

Oba J.O Aina & 1ORS Vs. Chief Israel Adebayo Dada & 1ORS, Judgment Delivered by Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa JSC, In SC.971/2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

  HOLDEN AT ABUJA

ON FRIDAY 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.    

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.

CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.          

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.      

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.                 

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

  1. OBA J.O AINA

  2. CHIEF MICHAEL AWOYEMI ( The Edemorun of Erinmope-Ekiti).             

AND

  1. CHIEF ISRAEL ADEBAYO DADA
  2. MOBAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT

APPELLANT

 

 

 

RESPONDENT

SC.971/2017

JUDGEMENT

DELIVERED BY CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA, JSC

I have read in draft the judgment of my learned brother, Hon. Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC, just delivered. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.

I shall add a few remarks on the issue of whether or not the court can accept the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2, which indicates the Edomorun title is similar to Obajemu, over Exhibits P9 and P10 both of which place the first Respondent’s title of Obajemu above the second Appellant’s title of Edomorun.

   The law is right that where there is oral as well as documentary evidence, the latter should be used as a basis from which to assess the oral evidence. The law is trite that where there is oral as well as documentary evidence, the latter should be used as a basis from which to assess the oral evidence. This is because documentary evidence is said to be more reliable than oral evidence and is used to test the credibility of oral evidence. Oral evidence cannot be used to contradict documentary evidence, which is always to be preferred over oral evidence. In Amobi v. Ogidi union (Nig) & ORS (2021) LPELR – 57337(SC) (PP 59-59 Paras A-E) his lordship Abdu Aboki, JSC, while determining whether documentary evidence is more reliable than oral evidence, held as follows:

“This court has variously upheld the credibility of documentary evidence over oral evidence, which would require that the witness is put through oath and examinations for the Court to deduce the truth in his testimony. Contents of a document, on the other hand, speaks for itself. In A-G., Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) LPELR – 9336 (SC), this Court, stated as follows:  ‘It is legally recognized by the Courts that documentary evidence, particularly archival materials, confer credibility to historical facts. Documentary evidence is the best form of evidence in proof of a case.’ See also: Bakari v. Ogundipe (2020) LPELR – 49571; Arije & ORS (2018) LPELR – 44193 (SC).”

Similarly, in Ibrahim vs Abdallah & ORS (2019) LPELR 48984 (SC) (PP 24-25 Paras B-A) his lordship John Inyang Okoro, JSC also held thus:

“It is instructive to note that this case was commenced at the trial Court by way of originating summons, wherein parties rely more on documentary evidence to prove their case rather than oral evidence. Indeed, this Court has variously upheld the credibility of documentary evidence over oral evidence, which would require that the witness is put through oath and examinations for the Court to deduce the truth in his testimonies. Contents of a document, on the other hand, speaks for itself. See Attorney General of Rivers State v Attorney General Bayelsa State (2013) 3 NWLR (PT 1340) p. 123 at 163; Ogologo v. Uche (1998) 4 NWLR (PT.572) 34 at 46.”

See also ARIJE V. ARIJE & ORD (2018) LPELR – 44193(SC), ELIAS V. FRN & ANOR (2016) LPELR – 40797, ODE V. AKAA (2017) LPELR – 46290 and BABADIDI V. LIDANI & ORS (2023) LPELR – 59777.

   In the instant case, the Respondents tendered Exhibits P9 ( Chiefs Law, Cap 19 of Western Region Legal Notice 22, 1959, Otun District Council Chieftancy Declaration) and Exhibit P10 ( Government White Paper on Morgan Chieftancy Review Commission 1981) both of which placed the first Respondent’s title of Obajemu above the second Appellant’s title of Edomorun. The Appellants, on their part, called DW1 and DW2 who gave oral evidence to indicate that the Edomorun title is senior to  Obajemu title in history, custom, and tradition.

  It is my opinion that the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 cannot be used to contradict Exhibits 9 and 10, both being documentary evidence. Documentary evidence speaks for itself. Oral evidence cannot be used to vary documentary evidence, except where the latter is inadmissible. Hence, Exhibits P9 and P10 being admissible documents, will take precedence over the oral testimonies of DW1 and DW2.

   For the above reasons and others stated in the leading judgment, I also hold that this appeal lacks merit, and it is hereby dismissed. I also affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

COUNSEL:

K.B.A BADIMUS for the Appellants.

ROTIMI BUNMI ADABEMBE for the Respondent.

Previous Post
Next Post

6 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Recent Posts

  • All Posts
  • Blog
    •   Back
    • Corporate Law Practice
    • Law Reports
    • Legal Library
    • Case Tracking
    • Court Navigation
    • Legal Sample Drafts
    • Politics
    • Rules and Enactments
    • Legal Archives
    • Articles
Facebook Twitter Youtube

Quick Links

About

Help Centre

Business

Contact

About Us

Terms of Use

Our Team

How It Works

Accessibility

Support

FAQs

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Career

Company Info

  • +234-(805)0985434
  • +234-(817)5109214
  • lawdome26@gmail.com
  • D16, CBN Qrts, Koma Close, Garki Area 11, Abuja

created by mylawniger.com