LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Oral Evidence — Documentary Evidence Does Not Exclude Oral Evidence of Transaction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The mere fact that a transaction is reduced into writing does not exclude oral evidence of that transaction in proof thereof subject to section 132(1) of the Evidence Act where oral evidence is excluded by documentary evidence in respect to judgments of court, official proceedings, written agreements and grants or other dispositions of property reduced into writing.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Ezemba v. Ibeneme & Anor (2004) NLC-1422000(SC) at p. 8; Paras D–E.
"The mere fact that a transaction is reduced into writing does not exclude oral evidence of that transaction in proof thereof subject of course to the provisions of section 132(1) of the Evidence Act, 1990 where oral evidence is excluded by documentary evidence in respect to judgments of court, official and judicial proceedings, written agreements and grants or other dispositions of property reduced into writing."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Reducing a transaction to writing does not automatically exclude oral evidence about that transaction. Section 132(1) excludes oral evidence only for specific documents: judgments, official proceedings, written agreements, and property dispositions. The principle applies to evidence law. The rule preserves oral testimony for ordinary commercial transactions. Waybills and delivery receipts are not within the excluded categories. Oral evidence remains admissible for such transactions.
