EVIDENCE LAW

UNIT 8

  • ESTOPPELS
  • COMPETENCY
  • COMPELLABILITY
  • PRIVILEGE
  • CORROBORATION

ESTOPPEL

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from arguing something contrary to a claim made or position taken previously, especially if this has been relied upon by others. Estoppel can be categorized into several types, including estoppel by record, estoppel by deed, estoppel by conduct (estoppel in pais), promissory estoppel, and proprietary estoppel. Estoppel bars the party from contradicting the earlier statement or behavior, effectively preventing them from taking a contrary position in a legal dispute. It upholds fairness and prevents unjust outcomes due to inconsistent behavior. See section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011 (Nigeria) which provides that "When one person has by his declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceedings between himself and such person or his representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing." The types of estoppel are;

  1. Estoppel by record: This type of estoppel arises from the finality of a judgment. Once a court has determined an issue, the same parties cannot dispute it in subsequent litigation. See the case of Enekwe v. I.M.B. (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1027) 353.
  2. Estoppel by deed: This type of estoppel arises from agreements or statements made in formal legal documents. See the case of Savannah Bank v. Ammel Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305.
  3. Estoppel by conduct (Estoppel in pais): This type of estoppel arises when a party, by their words or conduct, leads another party to believe in a certain state of affairs, and the latter relies on this belief to their detriment. See the case of Ude v. Nwara (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 278) 638.
  4. Promissory estoppel: This type of estoppel occurs when one party makes a promise, which the other party relies upon, leading to a change in their position. See the case of A-G of Lagos State v. A-G of the Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1.
  5. Proprietary estoppel: This type of estoppel arises where a party has relied on a promise or assurance about the use or ownership of property. See the case of Ude v. Nwara (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 278) 638.

COMPETENCY

A competent witness is one who can lawfully give evidence in a proceeding. Generally, every person is competent to testify unless the law provides otherwise. The following are the general rules of competency;

  1. Adults and minors: Adults are presumed competent to testify while minors may testify if they possess sufficient intelligence and understanding. See the case of Okoye v. The State (1972) 1 All NLR 500.
  2. Persons of unsound mind: Persons of unsound mind can testify if they understand the nature of the oath and can give rational testimony. See the case of Sabo v. The State (1973) 6 SC 37.
  3. Spouses: Generally, spouses are competent to testify for or against each other in civil cases but in criminal cases, a spouse is competent but not compellable to testify against the other, except in certain circumstances. See section 182(1) of the Evidence Act 2011.

COMPELLABILITY

A compellable witness is one who can be legally required to testify. While a competent witness may choose to testify, a compellable witness has no such choice and can be compelled to appear in court. See sections 175, 176, and 182 of the Evidence Act 2011 (Nigeria) which outline the rules concerning the competency and compellability of witnesses in various circumstances. The exceptions to compellability includes;

  1. Spouses: In criminal cases, spouses are generally not compellable to testify against each other, except in cases involving violence or offenses against the spouse or their children. See section 182(3) of the Evidence Act 2011.
  2. Diplomatic immunity: Diplomats and certain other officials are not compellable to testify due to their status.
  3. State Secrets: Witnesses may refuse to testify on matters of state secrecy.

PRIVILEGE

Privilege in legal terms refers to the right of a witness to refuse to testify about certain matters, or the right of a party to prevent certain evidence from being disclosed in court. Privileges are designed to protect relationships and communications deemed important by law. Privileges restrict the admissibility of certain evidence to protect confidential relationships and prevent harm to public interest. Courts balance the need for evidence against the importance of protecting privileged communications. The types of privilege are;

  1. Legal professional privilege: This protects communications between legal practitioners and their clients. See the case of Awolowo v. Min. of Internal Affairs (1962) LLR 177 and section 192 of the Evidence Act 2011.
  2. Marital privilege: This protects communications between spouses. See section 182(3) of the Evidence Act 2011.
  3. State privilege: This protects matters of state security and official secrets. See section 190 of the Evidence Act 2011.
  4. Medical privilege: This protects communications between doctors and patients, though it is not as absolute as legal professional privilege. See section 189 of the Evidence Act 2011.
  5. Self-incrimination privilege: This protects a witness from being compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them. See section 183 of the Evidence Act 2011.

CORROBORATION

Corroboration refers to the requirement that certain types of evidence must be supported or confirmed by additional, independent evidence. The aim is to ensure reliability and prevent wrongful convictions based on weak or questionable evidence. Corroborative evidence must be independent and tend to confirm the material particulars of the case. It should not merely repeat the initial evidence but should add weight and credibility to it. Corroboration enhances the credibility of evidence and helps prevent wrongful convictions. It serves as a safeguard against unreliable or insufficient evidence, ensuring that decisions are based on sound and supported facts. See section 209 of the Evidence Act 2011 (Nigeria) which outlines the requirement for corroboration in certain cases, including perjury and sexual offenses. Requirements for corroboration includes;

  1. Sexual offenses: Corroboration is often required in cases involving sexual offenses to prevent convictions based solely on the victim's testimony. See the case of Posu v. The State (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1261) 408.
  2. Accomplice evidence: Testimony from accomplices must be corroborated due to their potential bias and motivation to lie. See the case of R v. Omisade (1964) 1 All NLR 233.
  3. Perjury: Corroboration is needed to convict someone of perjury to ensure the falsehood of statements made under oath is reliably proven. See section 209 of the Evidence Act 2011.

CONCLUSION

By understanding these key legal concepts—estoppel, competency and compellability, privilege, and corroboration—legal practitioners and students can better navigate and apply the rules of evidence in Nigeria.