ETIM & ORS V. EKPE & ANOR

• Pages: 86-97

ETIM & ORS V. EKPE & ANOR



86

ETIM & ORS V. EKPE & ANOR

5

CHIEF BRUNO ETIM & ORS

V

10 CHIEF OKON UDO EKPE & ANOR

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 62/1982

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

IDIGBE,

15



ANIAGOLU,

NNAMANI,

UWAIS,

4th March, 1983

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

20

Evidence - Documentary evidence - Admission in evidence without objection by

adverse party - Document not one rendered inadmissible by law - Adverse

party precluded front complaining of inadmissibility on appeal - Previous

proceedings between same parties about same land - Admissibility in subsequent

proceedings as evidence of defendant's acts of possession even though not

25



constituting res judicata.

ISSUE:

1. Whether a counsel who allowed various documents to be admitted in evidence

without objection can raise an objection to the admissibility of such documents

30



on appeal.

FACTS:

This is a land dispute between the people of two villages in Uyo, the plaintiffs

claiming title to various areas of land. The trial court gave judgment for the de-

fendants in respect of part of the land, after weighing the evidence. The defend-

35



ants had successfully discredited the plaintiffs' case.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which dismissed the ap-

peal. There were thus two concurrent findings of fact against the appellants.

The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, and their counsel objected

to the admission of certain documents admitted by the trial court.

40

HELD:

It is a cardinal rule of evidence, and of practice, in civil as well as in criminal

cases, that an objection to the admissibility of a document sought 'by a party to be

put in evidence is taken when the document is offered in evidence. Barring some

exceptions where by law certain documents are rendered inadmissible (consent

45



or no consent of the parties notwithstanding) for failing to satisfy some conditions

or to meet some criteria, the rule still remains inviolate that where objection has

not been raised by the opposing party to the reception in evidence of a document

(or other evidence see:

Chukwura Akunne v. Mathias Ekwuno

(1952) 14 W.A.C.A.

59), the document will be admitted in evidence and the opposing party cannot

50



afterwards be heard to complain about its admission (see:

Alade v. Olukade

(1976)

2 SC. 183 at 188-9;

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Lamai v. Chief Orbih

(1980) 5-7 S.C. 28

2.

Mogo Chikwendu v. Mbamali

(1980) 3-4 S.C. 31