LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Expert Evidence — Medical Practitioner — Court Not Bound by Contradictory Medical Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A court is not bound by the evidence of a medical doctor, particularly when the evidence is contradictory in some material particular. A witness who lied on his qualifications clearly betrays the veracity of his evidence. The court may reject such evidence entirely.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Sowemimo & Anor v. State (2004) NLC-452002(SC) at pp. 11–12; Paras E–B.
"In Mgboko v. The State (1972) 2 SC 123, this court held that a court is not bound by the evidence of a medical doctor, particularly when the evidence is contradictory in some material particular. In my view, PW4 who lied on his qualifications clearly betrayed the veracity or authenticity of his evidence in the matter. I therefore reject it, as I do not have the competence to pick and choose what aspects or areas of his evidence I must believe."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts are not bound by medical evidence that is contradictory in material particulars. A witness who lies about qualifications betrays the veracity of all his evidence. The principle applies to expert evidence in all proceedings. The court may reject such evidence entirely. The rule prevents reliance on discredited expert testimony. Contradictions and dishonesty vitiate expert credibility.
