LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Affidavit Evidence – When Oral Evidence Is Necessary
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the conflicts are not material to the case or where the facts are inadmissible in evidence, the court should not be saddled with the responsibility of calling oral evidence to resolve the conflict.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Where the conflicts are not material to the case or where the facts are inadmissible in evidence, the court should not be saddled with the responsibility of calling oral evidence to resolve the conflict."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Conflicting affidavit evidence typically requires oral evidence (cross-examination) to resolve. However, oral evidence isn’t necessary when: (1) The conflicts concern immaterial facts—matters not affecting the outcome; (2) The facts are inadmissible—they couldn’t be proved through oral evidence either; (3) The conflicts don’t affect the decision. This exception serves judicial efficiency—avoiding unnecessary oral hearings when conflicts are irrelevant or inadmissible. Courts must assess: whether the conflicting facts are material (would they affect the outcome?), whether they’re admissible (could they be proved if relevant?), and whether resolution is necessary for the decision. If conflicts on immaterial or inadmissible matters exist, courts can: decide based on other evidence, ignore the conflicting affidavits on those points, or proceed without resolving those conflicts. This prevents: wasting court time on irrelevant conflicts, hearing inadmissible evidence orally, and delaying cases over immaterial disputes. The principle focuses judicial resources on material, admissible evidence actually affecting case outcomes.