LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Hearsay – Proof of Oral Instructions – Evidence of Recipient of Instruction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
All facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. The fact, therefore, that the 3rd appellant gave certain instructions to D.W.4 can be proved by oral evidence of either the 3rd appellant or D.W.4. In the light of Section 76(b) of the Evidence Act which provides that oral evidence must, if it refers to a fact which could be heard, be the evidence of a witness who says he heard that fact, the evidence of DW4 could not be described as hearsay; it is very much admissible and showed convincingly that respondent's retirement was effected under Decree No. 17.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC (adopting reasoning of Ogundare, JCA), in Omo v. JSC, Delta State & Ors (2000) NLC-3041990(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras B–A.
"All facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. The fact, therefore, that the 3rd appellant gave certain instructions to D.W.4 can be proved by oral evidence of either the 3rd appellant or D.W.4. In the light of Section 76(b) of the Evidence Act which provides that oral evidence must, if it refers to a fact which could be heard, be the evidence of a witness who says he heard that fact, the evidence of DW4 could not be described as hearsay; it is very much admissible and showed convincingly that respondent's retirement was effected under Decree No. 17."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Evidence of a witness who heard instructions given to them is not hearsay—it is direct evidence of what they heard. Section 76(b) of the Evidence Act permits oral evidence of facts heard. Such testimony is admissible to prove the fact that instructions were given and their content. The recipient of instructions is competent to testify about them. This is distinct from hearsay, which involves repeating another’s statement to prove its truth. Here, the witness testifies to their own sensory experience—the words they heard spoken.