Admission of inadmissible evidence

• Pages: 44-45

44

relied on the oral evidence of the 2nd respondent that they did not agree on anything

higher than 11% and held as follows: - “It will be recalled from the unchallenged

evidence of the respondent in the lower Court that the agreed rate of interest in the

case was 11% per annum. This was not disputed by the appellant herein.” This

conclusion was based on the inadmissible evidence of the 2nd respondent, which

was improperly received. Where matter has been improperly received in evidence

in the Court below, even when no objection was raised, it is the duty of a Court of

Appeal to reject it and to decide the case on legal evidence. See Jacker v.

International Cable Co. Ltd. (1888) 5 T.L.T. 13 and Owonyin v. Omotosho (1961)

1 All N.L.R. (Pt. 11) 304; (1961) 2 S.C.N.L.R. 57.” - Per Ogwuegbu, J.S.C., in

U.B.N. Ltd. v. Sax (Nig.) Ltd. Suit No. S.C. 236/1991; (1994) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 361)

150 at 170-171.

(10) ADMISSION OF INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

85. Appellate Court’s attitude to admission of inadmissible evidence.

(1) “Having said all that, what is the effect of this error? Learned counsel for the

appellant in his brief referred to S. 226(1) of the Evidence Act (now S. 227(1))

which reads: “227(1) The wrongful admission of evidence shall not of itself be a

ground for the reversal of any decision in any case where it shall appear to the Court

on appeal that the evidence so admitted cannot reasonably be held to have affected

the decision and that such decision would have been the same if such evidence had

not been admitted.” - Per Ogundare, J.S.C., in Agbaje v. Adigun Suit No. S.C. 275/

1990; (1993) 24 N.S.C.C. (Pt. I) 1 at 9; (1993) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 269) 261 at 272.

(2) “My learned brother proceeded in the lead judgment to consider Ground 5 on its

merits. I frankly do not think it is deserving of such treatment. I however also agree

him that whatever error the learned trial Judge made in wrongfully admitting Exhibit

X5, that error did not affect the final decision to which he arrived vide section 227(1)

of the Evidence Act.” - Per Omo, J.S.C., in Agbaje v. Adigun Suit No. S.C. 275/

1990; (1993) 24 N.S.C.C. (Pt. I) 1 at 11; (1993) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 269) 261 at 275.

(3) “I think it is in the interest of justice, the efficient and effective administration of

justice and to minimize the prolongation of litigation, to ensure that evidence which

ought to be admitted at the trial, but was not because diligent search did not lead to

its discovery is received in evidence on appeal when subsequently discovered and is

sought to be admitted. The maxim Interest rei publicae ut sit finis litum is not only

a statement of public policy it is a principle of justice of undoubted relevance in all

cases. It will not be justice to refuse to receive relevant and material evidence relied

upon by both parties.” See further and also Francis Nwanezie v. Nuhu Idris and

Abba Dabo (1993) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 279) page 1 at page 15, held 4 S.C.” - Per

Onalaja, J.C.A., in Igbosonyi v. Onwubuariri Suit No. CA/PH/97/95; (1997) 3

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 495) 592 at 604.

(4) “On the issue that the admissibility of the said survey plans before the trial Court

was justified on the ground that they were admitted in evidence without objection, it

Paras. 84-85