LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Admissibility of Previous Evidence — Court’s Duty to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In a trial by a judge sitting alone, if inadmissible evidence has been received, it is the duty of the judge to reject it when giving judgment; if he has not done so, it will be rejected on appeal. The court cannot admit and act on legally inadmissible evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Shanu & Anor v. Afribank Nigeria Plc (2002) NLC-1691997(SC) at pp. 18–19; Paras D–B.
"In a trial by a Judge sitting alone, if inadmissible evidence has been received whether with or without objection, it is the duty of the Judge to reject it when giving judgment, and if he has not done so, it will be rejected on appeal. The court is not permitted in any event to admit and act on legally inadmissible evidence. If such evidence has been admitted even by overruling an objection to its admission, the court must reject it when giving its final judgment even if that amounts to overruling itself to do so."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A trial judge must exclude inadmissible evidence, even if admitted without objection. The judge has a duty to reject it in the judgment. The appellate court will also reject it. The principle ensures that judgments are based on legally admissible evidence. Consent cannot make inadmissible evidence admissible. The court cannot rely on inadmissible evidence. The rule applies to all trials. The judge must apply the law of evidence correctly. The appellate court will set aside decisions based on inadmissible evidence. The principle protects the integrity of the judicial process. The judge must exercise this duty even if it means overruling a previous ruling.