LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Admissibility of Evidence — Admission of Documents — Effect of Failure to Object at Trial
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In a trial by a judge alone, a distinction must be drawn between evidence absolutely inadmissible and evidence admissible under certain conditions. In the latter class, if admitted without objection, the appellate court will not entertain a complaint on admissibility.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Kossen (Nig.) Limited v. Savannah Bank of Nig. Limited (1995) NLC-2091989(SC) at pp. 17–19; Paras. D–A.
"In civil cases where the trial has been before a Judge and jury, the wrongful admission of evidence cannot be made a ground of appeal unless the appellant had formally objected to the evidence at the trial. In a trial by a Judge alone, a distinction must be drawn between evidence that is in no circumstances admissible in law and evidence that is admissible under certain conditions. In the former class, the evidence cannot be acted upon even if parties admitted it by consent. In the latter class, if the evidence was admitted without objection or by consent of parties or was used by the opposite party, then it would be within the competence of the trial court to act on it and the court of appeal will not entertain any complaint on the admissibility of such evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Absolutely inadmissible evidence cannot be cured by consent. Conditionally admissible evidence becomes admissible if admitted without objection. The principle applies to trials by judge alone. The appellate court will not entertain complaints on admissibility if no objection was raised. The rule promotes efficiency and prevents tactical ambush.