LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Affidavit Evidence — Conflict — Contradictions Within a Party’s Own Affidavits
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a party's case has inconsistencies or contradictions, the court is not obliged to arrange for oral evidence to resolve them. The onus is on the party to explain away the contradictions. Failure to do so leaves an indelible dent on the case.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Arjay Ltd & Ors v. Airline Management Support Ltd (2003) NLC-1122000(SC) at p. 20; Paras C–D.
"Where a party's case is plagued by inconsistencies or contradictions, there is no obligation on the court seized of the matter to arrange for oral evidence to be called for the purposes of resolving the contradictions. In such circumstances, the onus is on the party 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 a party's own affidavit evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Self-contradictions in a party’s affidavits must be explained by the party. The court will not arrange oral evidence to resolve them. The principle applies to affidavit evidence. The rule promotes efficiency. Unresolved contradictions weaken the party’s case. The principle is well-established.