LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Traditional History – Contradictions in Testimony – Material Contradictions Affecting Credibility
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In consideration of conflict of evidence of witness of parties it is material contradiction that matters not minor contradictions especially where the evidence is based on traditional history. ... There are sharp material contradictions in testimonies of the 1st PW on one part as against 2nd and 4th PWs whose evidence are ad idem that Iju/Jack House still exists contrary to 1st PW who stated that Iju Jack House exists as a shadow house under the umbrella of Oba Standfast Jack House.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"In consideration of conflict of evidence of witness of parties it is material contradiction that matters not minor contradictions especially where the evidence is based on traditional history. ... There are sharp material contradictions in testimonies of the 1st PW on one part as against 2nd and 4th PWs whose evidence are ad idem that Iju/Jack House still exists contrary to 1st PW who stated that Iju Jack House exists as a shadow house under the umbrella of Oba Standfast Jack House."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
In traditional history evidence, material contradictions matter, not minor ones. Sharp contradictions between a party’s own witnesses on fundamental facts affect credibility. Where one witness says a house still exists and another says it exists only as a “shadow house” under another name, the contradiction is material. The court cannot reconcile such conflicting evidence. The trial court’s finding based on contradictory evidence is unreliable. The appellate court may interfere. Material contradictions go to the root of the case. Minor inconsistencies are expected in oral tradition, but sharp contradictions on essential facts undermine the case. The court must identify whether contradictions are material or minor. Material contradictions create reasonable doubt.