LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Pleadings – Party Cannot Rely on Document Not Pleaded
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Secondly Exhibit D was not relied upon by the Appellants in the Court below. Indeed their Counsel objected to its reception in evidence. A party should be consistent in the case he pursues. He will not be permitted to spring surprises on the opposite party from one stage to another.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Ekpe & Ors v. Oke & Ors (2001) NLC-351996(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–B.
"Secondly Exhibit D was not relied upon by the Appellants in the Court below. Indeed their Counsel objected to its reception in evidence. A party should be consistent in the case he pursues. He will not be permitted to spring surprises on the opposite party from one stage to another."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party cannot rely on a document in appeal that they did not rely on in the court below, especially if they objected to its admission. Consistency is required—parties cannot change their case or spring surprises at different stages. A party who objected to a document’s admissibility cannot later rely on it. The principle prevents tactical shifts and ensures fair notice to the opposing party. The appellate court will not allow a party to approbate and reprobate. The case must be pursued consistently from trial through appeal. This preserves the integrity of the adversarial process.