LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Affidavit Evidence – Self-Contradictions – Onus on Deponent to Explain
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the appellant's case is plagued by inconsistencies or contradictions, there is no obligation, in such circumstances, on the court seized of the matter to arrange for oral evidence to be called for the purposes of making or resolving the contradictions in the appellant's case. The law frowns on a party who approbates in one breath and reprobates in another. But having said that, I must hurry to state that the onus is undoubtedly on the appellant confronted with its self-created contradictions to fully and properly explain away the contradictions to the satisfaction of the court. Failure to do so is bound to leave an indelible dent on the appellant's case. It is not open to the court to enter into the arena of judicial conflict between the parties in order to resolve the contradictions within the appellant's own affidavit evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Achike, JSC, in Momah v. VAB Petroleum Inc. (2000) NLC-1831995(SC) at p. 18; Paras A–C.
"Where the appellant's case is plagued by inconsistencies or contradictions, there is no obligation, in such circumstances, on the court seized of the matter to arrange for oral evidence to be called for the purposes of making or resolving the contradictions in the appellant's case. The law frowns on a party who approbates in one breath and reprobates in another. But having said that, I must hurry to state that the onus is undoubtedly on the appellant confronted with its self-created contradictions to fully and properly explain away the contradictions to the satisfaction of the court. Failure to do so is bound to leave an indelible dent on the appellant's case. It is not open to the court to enter into the arena of judicial conflict between the parties in order to resolve the contradictions within the appellant's own affidavit evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party whose affidavits contain self-contradictions bears the burden of explaining them satisfactorily. The court is not obliged to arrange oral evidence to resolve internal inconsistencies—the party must address them. Approbation and reprobation (blowing hot and cold) is disfavoured. Failure to explain contradictions leaves an indelible dent on the party’s case, undermining credibility. Courts cannot enter the arena to resolve a party’s own inconsistencies; the party must present a coherent case. Self-created contradictions weaken or destroy the party’s chance of success.