LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Affidavit Evidence – Conclusions – Meaning of Conclusion Under Section 87 of the Evidence Act
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
I do not think that view has any merit either by way of the interpretation of the said s. 87 of the Evidence Act or by looking broadly at the word 'conclusion' which covers any conclusion based on fact or law as a result of a process of reasoning. It is the same process by which opinion or deduction is arrived at or inference drawn. Therefore to say that the conclusion meant under s. 87 is legal conclusion is restrictive and misleading.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Bamaiyi v. State & Ors (2001) NLC-2922000(SC) at pp. 15–16; Paras D–A.
"I do not think that view has any merit either by way of the interpretation of the said s. 87 of the Evidence Act or by looking broadly at the word 'conclusion' which covers any conclusion based on fact or law as a result of a process of reasoning. It is the same process by which opinion or deduction is arrived at or inference drawn. Therefore to say that the conclusion meant under s. 87 is legal conclusion is restrictive and misleading."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The word “conclusion” in Section 87 of the Evidence Act covers any conclusion based on fact or law resulting from a process of reasoning—including opinions, deductions, and inferences. It is not limited to legal conclusions. Restricting it to legal conclusions is misleading and too narrow. Affidavits must state facts and circumstances, not the deponent’s conclusions or inferences. The deponent should present primary facts; the court draws conclusions. The prohibition applies to factual conclusions (e.g., “the defendant was negligent”) as much as legal ones. The principle ensures that affidavits provide raw evidence, not reasoned conclusions. The court performs the reasoning function, not the deponent.
