LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Admissibility of Evidence – Effect of Consent and Failure to Object at Trial
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where inadmissible evidence is tendered, the other party must object. If he fails to object, the court may (in civil cases) reject it suo motu. On appeal, if the evidence is admissible under certain conditions and the other party did not object or consented, he cannot raise any objection to its admissibility on appeal.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Osho v. Ape (1998) NLC-2021993(SC) at p. 15; Paras B–D.
"In this connection, it has to be stressed that a court of law is expected in all proceedings to admit and act only on evidence which is admissible in law. Consequently, if a court inadvertently admits inadmissible evidence, it has a duty, generally, not to act upon it. Where, however, inadmissible evidence is tendered, it is the duty of the other party or counsel on his behalf, to object immediately to the admissibility of such evidence. But when such other party fails or neglects to raise any objection as aforesaid, the trial court in civil cases may (and in criminal cases must) reject such evidence exproprio motu. On appeal, however, provided the evidence complained of is one which by law is admissible under certain conditions and the other party did not object to its admissibility at the trial court, or by implication, consented to its admissibility... he cannot be allowed to raise any objection as to its admissibility in the Court of Appeal."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Failure to object at trial waives the right to challenge admissibility on appeal for conditionally admissible evidence. The principle applies to civil cases. The court may still reject inadmissible evidence suo motu. The rule promotes finality. The party must be vigilant. The principle is well-established.
