LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Traditional Evidence — Demeanour of Witnesses as Guide to Truth
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A distinction must be drawn between primary facts (witnesses' own observations) and traditional history (handed down from forefathers). For primary facts, demeanour is relevant. For traditional history, demeanour is little guide; the best way is to test by recent facts.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Morenikeji & Ors v. Adegbosin & Ors (2003) NLC-171999(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras D–A.
"A distinction must be drawn between the mode of assessment of the credibility of witnesses with regard to primary facts, that is to say, facts which the witnesses actually saw and/or observed with their own eyes or knew from their own personal knowledge as against evidence of traditional history which had been handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation from the forefathers of the witnesses. With regard to the former, the bearing and demeanour of witnesses among other factors are clearly of relevance in the determination of the veracity of the witnesses that testified on such primary facts. In the case of the latter, however, the demeanour of witnesses is little guide to the truth and the best way to resolve conflicting traditional histories is to test such histories by reference to facts in recent years as established by evidence to see which of the two competing histories is the more probable."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Demeanour is relevant for primary facts but not for traditional history. The principle applies to evidence evaluation. The court must distinguish between types of evidence. The rule ensures proper assessment. The principle is well-established.