Relevance And Admissability Flashcards
Section 5 of the evidence act states
Section 5 of the 2011 Evidence Act, facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts which are the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. For clarity, three categories of facts are decipherable here; these are
i. facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise of relevant facts;
ii. facts which are the state of things under which they happened; and
iii. facts which afford an opportunity for their occurrence.
By section 5 thereof, all the above category of facts are relevant. Note that, the provisions of section 5 is no warrant for admitting hearsay evidence under section 38 of the Evidence Act 2011. In Ozude v. IGP, a police constable was charged with receiving bribe to stifle a case. The respondent argued relying on this section that statements by the witnesses that the first witness told them he had given money to the police officer. The Supreme Court rejected it as hearsay saying that the provision is no authority for letting it in.
Section 6 of the evidence act states
section 6(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, any fact is relevant that shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. By motive we mean the reason for the act or omission; it is the factor that impels somebody to act or fail to act; example love, fear, jealousy, envy, etc: Oguntolu v. The State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 50) 464. Generally, motive is of no importance insofar as criminal liability is concerned; but is relevant. In R v. Senior, it was held that a man who has to provide medical aid for a sick child, but refused to do so; though for religious belief had the motive to cause death. Read further the entire provision of section
Section 7 of the act states
ection 7 of the Evidence Act 2011, the following facts are regarded as relevant to a fact in issue: (a) facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact; (b) facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact; (c) facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant; (d) facts which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened: or (e) facts which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted. By section 7 thereof, all the above facts are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. In the case of Obasanjo v Seaview Investment Ltd. (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 317) 327 at 328, the Court of Appeal held that a fact which introduces a fact in issue is relevant notwithstanding the fact that such a fact may be scandalous.
Section 8 of the evidence act states
section 8(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in execution or furtherance of their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as well as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
In Enahoro v. R, it was held that under this section, once there is reasonable ground for believing in the existence of conspiracy, that is the court‘s satisfaction that there are prima facie grounds for believing in the existence of conspiracy. In the instance case, it was held that evidence of directions given by one of the conspirators to the other two co-conspirators in furtherance of the plan was admissible.
Section 9 of the evidence act
section 9 of the 2011 Evidence Act, facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if — (a) they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; and (b) by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact probable or improbable. See Oloyede Akingbade v. Oyeyipo Elemesho (1964).
Section 10 of the evidence act
section 10 of the 2011 Evidence Act, in proceedings in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant.
What does section 11 state in the evidence act
section 10 of the 2011 Evidence Act, in proceedings in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant.
section 11(1) thereof, facts showing the existence of— (a) any state of mind such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person; or (b) any state of body or bodily feeling are relevant when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant. It is pertinent to observed that by section 11(2), a fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
Section 12 of the evidence act states
section 12 of the Evidence Act 2011, when there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention or to rebut any defence that may otherwise be open to the defendant, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.
Take note that section 12 codifies the English Common Law rule as to the admissibility of similar facts evidence, which is evidence of the improper conduct of the parties on other occasions. Under the section, evidence of other acts of the accused similar to the act complained of may be relevant to defences of accident; lack of intention and lack of knowledge. Also, this may have the effect of letting in evidence of bad character of the accused: Makin v. AG for New South Wales.
Section 13 of the evidence act
section 13 of the same Act, when there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact. This principle is the same as under the English Common Law. Thus, if it is necessary to prove that a particular letter was posted, evidence that it was delivered to a clerk who was in the habit of taking posts is admissible.
The relationship between relevance and admissibility
In the case of DPP v. Kilbourne (1973) AC 729, the English Court of Appeal, per Lord Simon opined that ―the terms relevancy and admissibility are frequently and in many circumstances legitimately used interchangeably; but I think it makes for clarity if they are kept separate, since some relevant evidence is inadmissible and some admissible evidence is irrelevant. The provisions of section 14 of the 2011 Evidence Act which provides for the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence supports the above assertion.
Indeed, the relationship between the two concepts may be noted as follows:
Indeed, the relationship between the two concepts may be noted as follows:
a. When it is said that a piece of evidence is admissible, what is meant is that the evidence is relevant and is one which can be admitted in a judicial proceeding because it does not offend any exclusionary rule. A fact which is ordinarily admissible may become inadmissible because a statute declared it inadmissible or the fact is too remote to be material. See section 1 EA 2011.
b. Admissibility is a matter of law; relevancy is usually, though not invariably, a matter of logic and common sense.
c. Whereas all irrelevant facts are inadmissible; not all relevant facts are admissible because of the above highlighted exclusionary rule.
Facts according to section 258
Fact has been defined by Section 258(1) a ofthe Evidence Act to include:
a.
Anything or relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses.
b. Any mental condition of which any persons is conscious.
How did phipson define facts
According to Phipson facts broadly apply to whatever is the subject of perception or consciousness. Facts has also been defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary to
mean,
“something that actually exist; and aspect of reality
Can the court investigate a fact
It must be noted, that the business of the Court is not to investigate facts, but to evaluate same. All the Court is expected to do is to either act or refrain from acting on the facts presented, based on whether they are facts is in issue or not in issue.
That is whether they are facts that are relevant or irrelevant. Thus in the case of P.A.N. v. Oje, it was held, that a Court of law does not embark on a jamboree of fact finding, as it is the duty of parties to present facts and establish same before the Court. It is also the law that a Court cannot act on facts not before it. In the words of AYOOLA JSC in Keyano v. L.S.H.A & Ors,6? “
…No reasonable
Court will grant a relief predicated on the existence of facts without having the facts put before it.
What is a fact in issue
It is not enough that because facts have been presented to the Court in any judicial proceedings, the Court has the burden of pronouncing on such facts. For the Court to be duty bound to pronounce on facts, such facts must actually be in issue, that is, it must be relevant to the claims before the Court. In the words of Aguda;68
It is of course clear that a Court is not expected to pronounce on every fact, which is disclosed before it at the trial of a case. It is only the facts in issue between the parties and also facts which are relevant to the facts in issue that a Court is bound to pronounce upon…
“ This is further expressed in Section 1 of
the Evidence Act. The Section provides that “evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereafter declared to be relevant and of no other
Section 258(1)(b) of the Evidence Act defines “fact in issue” to include any fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts the existence, non-existence or extent of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follows. Similarly, Halsbury’s Laws of England® provides that facts in issue are those facts which are necessary to prove or disprove, to establish or refute a case or the claim. Hence, the success of any claim by the Claimant or Plaintiff is dependent on whether the facts in issue or facts relevant to the facts in issue have been proved by evidence before the Court.
