Oath

The law is settled that a witness who has two materially inconsistent pieces of evidence on oath by him on the same issue or print of fact does not deserve to be believed or given the honor of credibility. He also does not deserve to be described as truthful. See AYANWALE v. ATANDA (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.68) 22; MONOPRIX (NIG) LTD. v. OKONWA (1995) 3 NWLR (pt.383) 325; BAYO AREMU v. DANIEL GEORGE CHUKWU (2011) LPELR – 3862(CA). A person who speaks differently from two corners of his mouth on oath and on the same matter is a perjurer who does not deserve to be credited with any honor.

Oaths have reverence. Subscribing to oath is one of the methods of establishing the truth of a fact. See ONYENAE v. EBERE(2004) 13 NWLR (pt.889) 20; (2004) 18 NSCQR 789. A man who makes his statement or declaration on oath undertakes that his statement or declaration on oath is true and he is bound by his words of declaration. See S.C. CHUKWUMA v. ANTHONY EZECHI NWOYE & ORS. (2009) LPELR – 4997 (CA).

The implication or legal effect of an oath is to subject the person who took the oath to penalties for perjury in the event that the averments or testimony turn out to be false. See: Akpatason Vs Adjoto & Ors. (2019) LPELR-48119 (SC) @ 15 D-E; Chukwuma vs Nwoye & Ors. (2009) LPELR-4997 (CA); Action Congress & Anor. vs INEC (2007) LPELR-66 (SC) @ 88 A-C. KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
THE DETERMINATION OF A CAUSE OF ACTION ​In order to determine whether a cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of a Court as provided for in the Constitution or the statute that created it, regard will be had to the originating processes only. Where the action is commenced by a Writ of Summons, the processes to be examined are the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. Where the action is commenced by Originating Summons, it is only the Originating Summons and the affidavit in support that would be considered. See: Adeyemi Vs Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC (Reprint) 18, A.G.
Federation Vs Guardian Newspapers Ltd. & Ors. (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187; A.G. Anambra State vs A.G. Federation (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 1. ;”> MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW GUIDING THE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES The decision of this Court in Nursing and Midwifery Council of Nigeria Vs Patrick Ogu & Anor (2019) LPELR-53899 (SC) @ 15-17 F-A is quite germane to the resolution of this issue. The Court per Mary Peter-Odili, JSC held thus: “This Court has laid down the guiding principles guiding the award of exemplary damages in the case of CBN vs Okojie (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt.1479) 231; (2015) LPELR-24740 (SC) thus: ‘Exemplary damages are awarded with the object of punishing the defendant for his conduct in inflicting injury on the plaintiff.
They can be made in addition to normal compensatory damages and should be made only: (a) In a case of oppressive arbitrary or unconstitutional acts by government servants; (b) where the defendant’s conduct had been calculated by him to make a profit for himself, which might well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff and (c) where expressly authorised by statute.”<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”> MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
THE PRINCIPLE AND THE APPLICABILITY OF FAIR HEARING It is to be noted that the principle of fair hearing is not a magic wand to cure all inadequacies at the trial Court nor can it be applied in the abstract at the comfort and convenience of a party. It is a principle founded and has to be based on the facts of a given case before the Courts, hence only the facts of the case can influence and determine the application or applicability of the principle, from the reliefs sought in the suit. See Governor of Ekiti State v Olubunmo (2017) 3 NWLR (pt. 1551) 1 at 39-40, 42 & 48 .
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
THE MEANING AND DINSTINCTION OF RELEVANCY AND THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE The position of the law which I have been trying to articulate is well set out in the judgment of this Court in Abubakar v. Chuks (2007) LPELR-52 (SC) at 13, paras. C- G, (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 386 at page 403 Tobi, JSC articulated the law and the basis for it as follows:- “Relevancy and weight are in quite distinct compartments in our law of evidence. They convey two separate meanings in our adjectival law and not in any form of dovetail.
In the order of human action or activity, in the area of the law of evidence, relevancy comes before weight. Relevancy, which propel admissibility, is invoked by the trial Judge immediately the document is tendered. At that stage, the Judge applies Sections 6, 7, 8 and other relevant provisions of the Evidence Act to determine the relevance or otherwise of the document tendered. If the document is irrelevant, it is rejected with little or no ado. Weight comes in after the document has been admitted.
This is the stage of writing the judgment or ruling as the case may be.” MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.