Oral Evidence, Real Evidence, Documentary Evidence Outline - PDF

2024/12/15 1 EVIDENCE ORAL EVIDENCE, REAL EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, STANDARD OF PROOF AND CORROBORATION 2 ORAL EVIDENCE Oral Evidence is the viva voce of witnesses brought to court to give evidence on oath. All evidence except the c...

2024/12/15 1 EVIDENCE ORAL EVIDENCE, REAL EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, STANDARD OF PROOF AND CORROBORATION 2 ORAL EVIDENCE Oral Evidence is the viva voce of witnesses brought to court to give evidence on oath. All evidence except the content of a document can be proved by oral evidence. S.125 of EA Subject to the provisions of Part III of this Act, oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct. Section 126 3 ORAL EVIDENCE - (a) if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw that fact; - (b) if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard that fact; - (c) if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived that fact by that sense or in that manner; - (d) if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds: 4 ORAL EVIDENCE - Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatise if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the court regards as unreasonable 5 REAL EVIDENCE Section 127 provides for Real Evidence. Reading sections 125, 126 and 127 of EA shows that real evidence is proved by Oral Evidence. Section 127(1) states: If oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material 1 5 Section 127(1) states: If oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the court may, if it thinks fit – (a) require the production of such material thing for its inspection, or (b) Inspect any moveable or immovable property the inspection of which may be material to the proper determination of the question in dispute. 6 REAL EVIDENCE: INSPECTION. S. 127 When an inspection of property under section 127 is required to be held at a place outside the courtroom, the court shall either – (a) be adjourned to the place where the subject - matter of the said inspection may be and the proceedings shall continue at that place until the court further adjourns back to its original place of sitting, or to some other place of sitting; or (b) attend and make an inspection of the subject - matter only, evidence, if any, of what transpired there being given in court afterwards, and in either case the defendant, if any, shall be present 7 REAL EVIDENCE: INSPECTION. S. 127 Can take place at any time before judgment Nwizik v. Eneyok & ors In criminal cases, the accused person must be present at the locus Adunfe v. IGP- can it lead to the annulation of the trial/judgment?? A record of the inspection must be made in the record book Maji v. Shafi Places pointed out and evidence of the witness must be corroborated on oath 8 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Under the Topic Documentary Evidence, our discussion will be centered on the following: What is a document“ Classification of documents Proof of the content of a document Admissibility of a document: documentary hearsay Admissibility of a computer generated Evidence 9 9 What is a Document? Fact relevant to be proved in writing. A document is defined in section 258 (a) thus: Books, maps, plans, graphs, drawings, photographs and also includes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures, marks or by more than one of these means, intended to be used or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter; The above arm of definition found in section 258(1) of the Evidence act is the common definition. It is easy to appreciate. It agrees with the Definition fo Evidence in the Case of R.v. Stephenson (1971)1 WLR.1 10 DOCUMENT The said section 258 also defines a document thus: a. books, maps, plans, graphs, drawings, photographs, and also includes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of these means, intended to be used or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter; b. (b) any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced from it, c. (c) any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced from it; and (d) any device by means of which information is recorded, stored or retrievable including computer output 11 CLASSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS There are two types of documents in the law of Evidence. They are: Public Documents or Private Documents Primary or secondary documents These classifications are important for the purpose of the admissibility of a document. 12 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS A Public Documents is defined in section s.102 of the Evidence Act thus: (a) documents forming the official acts or records of the official acts – (i) of the sovereign authority; (ii) of official bodies and tribunals; (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, 12 acts – (i) of the sovereign authority; (ii) of official bodies and tribunals; (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere; (b) Public records kept in Nigeria of private documents Section 103 defines a private document thus: All documents other than public documents are private documents. 13 PROOF OF CONTENT The content of a Document can be proven by primary or secondary evidence. 86. Primary evidence. (1) Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. (2) Where a document has been executed in several parts, each part shall be primary evidence of the document. (3) Where a document has been executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart shall be primary evidence as against the parties executing it. 14 PRIMARY EVIDENCE (4) Where a number of documents have all been made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, photography, computer or other electronic or mechanical process, each shall be primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but where they are all copies of a common original, they shall not be primary evidence of the contents of the original 15 SECONDARY EVIDENCE. SECTION 87 Secondary Evidence includes: (a) certified copies given under the provisions hereafter contained in this Act; (b) copies made from the original by mechanical or electronic processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (c) copies made from or compared with the original; (d) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (e) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it 16  person who has himself seen it 16 Section 85 says The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Section 88 makes proof of documents by primary evidence Preferable. It says: Documents shall be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereafter mentioned in this Act 17 WHEN SECONDARY EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases: a.when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power – (i) of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or (ii) of any person legally bound to produce it, and when after the notice mentioned in section 91 such person does not produce it; b.when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; c. when the original has been destroyed or lost and in the latter case all possible search has been made for it; 18 (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 102; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act or by any other law in force in Nigeria, to be given in evidence; (g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection; (h) When the document is an entry in a banker’s book. 19 (1) The secondary evidence admissible in respect of the original documents referred to in the several paragraphs of section 89 is as follows: (a) in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible; (b) in paragraph (b), the written admission is admissible; 20  contents of the document is admissible; (b) in paragraph (b), the written admission is admissible; (c) in paragraph (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other secondary evidence is admissible; (d) in paragraph (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents; 20 (e) in paragraph (h), the copies cannot be received as evidence unless it is first proved that - (i) the book in which the entries copied were made was at the time of making one of the ordinary books of the bank, (ii) the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, (iii) the book is in the control and custody of the bank, which proof may be given orally or by affidavit by an officer of the bank, and (iv) The copy has been examined with the original entry and is correct, which proof must be given by some person who has examined the copy with the original entry, and may be given orally or by affidavit. (2) When a seaman sues for his wages he may give secondary evidence of the ship’s articles and of any agreement supporting his case, without notice to produce the originals 21 91. RULES AS TO NOTICE TO PRODUCE. 22 BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF 23 BURDEN OF PROOF The Law of Evidence is all about proof. In the case of Adighije v. Nwaogu, it was held: “The Law of Evidence is all about proof of a particular issue. Proof in its legal meaning is the process by which the existence or non- existence of facts is established to the satisfaction of the court.” 24 BURDEN OF PROOF "Burden of proof has two meanings; first is the burden of proof as a matter of law and the pleadings which is usually referred to as the legal burden or the burden of establishing a case. The second is the burden of adducing evidence, usually described as evidential burden. While the burden of proof in the first case is always static, burden of proof in the second case shifts according to the worth of evidence adduced; See ODUKWE V. OGUNBIYI (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 561) 339." Per MUSTAPHA ,J.C.A in Mogbo v. Onwukwe (Pp. 12 paras. A)a 25  (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 561) 339." Per MUSTAPHA ,J.C.A in Mogbo v. Onwukwe (Pp. 12 paras. A)a 25 Legal Burden Section 131 of the Evidence Act (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person Section 132 of the Evidence Act The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 26 LEGAL BURDEN is based on the principle: He who alleges must prove "It is elementary law that the burden of proof is on the party who alleges the affirmative of the issue. In other words, the burden of proof is on the party to prove the facts he relies upon to succeed in the case. See Okechukwu & Sons v. Ndah (1967) NMLR 368; Abiodun v. Adehin (1962) 1 All NLR 550; George v. U.B.A. (1972) 8-9 SC 264. In most cases, that party is the plaintiff. See Osawaru v. Ezeiruka (1978) 6-7 SC 135. Similarly, in land matters, the burden of proof is on the party who claims title to or ownership of the land. Again, in most cases, he is the plaintiff. See GB Ollivant Ltd. v. Korsah (1941) 7 WAC A 188; Adenle v. Oyegbade (1967)NMLR 136; Oyeyiola v. Adeoti (1973) NNLR 10; Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799." Per TOBI ,J.S.C in OJOH v. KAMALU & ORS (2005) LPELR-2389(SC) (Pp. 35-36 paras. F) 27 “In the first sense, it means the burden of a party to persuade the court that his case is true and consequently to have the case established and judgment given in his favour. This burden is always stable and remains on the same party. The other meaning of burden of proof is the obligation to adduce evidence on a particular fact or issue and unlike the burden on the pleadings or the legal burden, this burden is not fixed but shifts from one party to another. What this means is that when a party bearing evidential burden has discharged it by adducing the requisite evidence on the particular fact, then his opponent comes under another evidential burden either to disprove the fact or neutralize the evidence by proving other facts...” Gbinijie v. Odji (2011) 4 NWLR (pt. 1236) 103 CA 28  other facts...” Gbinijie v. Odji (2011) 4 NWLR (pt. 1236) 103 CA 28 Evidential Burden Section 133(1) and (2), Evidence Act (1) In civil cases, the burden of first proving existence or non- existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. (2) If the party referred to in subsection (1) of this section adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy the court that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be give if no more evidence were adduced, and so on successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with. 29 Therefore to discover where the onus lies in any given case, the court has to look critically at the pleadings. Where for instance the plaintiff pleads possession of the land in dispute as his root of title and the defendant admits that possession but adds that the land was given to the plaintiff on pledge, then the onus shifts onto the defendant to prove that the plaintiff is not the owner of the land, his possession of which has been admitted. Once the defendant admits the plaintiff's possession of the land in dispute in his Statement of Defence, then and there, the plaintiff has on the pleadings discharged the onus of proof cast on him and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 62 of 1958 will impose a burden on the defendant to prove the negative namely that the plaintiff is not in the owner. See Lawrence Onyekaonwu and Ors. v. Ekwubiri (1966) 1 All N. L. R. 32 at p. 35. In such a case, it is the defendant who will begin and if at the close of his case he fails to prove that the plaintiff is not the owner, the plaintiff's claim succeeds without even the plaintiff giving any further evidence. Per OPUTA ,J.S.C in ONOBRUCHERE & ANOR v. ESEGINE & ANOR (1986) LPELR-2688(SC) 30 In Imana V. Robinson (1979) 3 - 4 SC 1 at 9, a case learned appellants/cross-respondents justifiably relies on, this Court has held as follows:- "The burden of proof in this case, rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. It is fixed at the beginning of the trial by the state of the pleadings, and it is settled as a question of law, remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleading placed it  pleadings, and it is settled as a question of law, remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleading placed it and never shifting in any circumstances whatever. If when all the evidence, by whomsoever introduced, is in, the party who has the burden has not discharged it, the decision must be against him." Per MUHAMMAD ,J.S.C in Odom & ors v. PDP & ors (2015) LPELR-24351(SC) (Pp. 43-44 paras. B) 31 Evidential Burden Section 136, Evidence Act (1) The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person, but the burden may in the course of a case be shifted from one side to the other. (2) In considering the amount of evidence necessary to shift the burden of proof regard shall be had by the court to the opportunity of knowledge with respect to the fact to be proved which may be possessed by the parties respectively. 32 On whom does the burden of proof lie? Section 132, Evidence Act Section 133(2), Evidence Act In a criminal case, Section 139, Evidence Act 33 (1) Where a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any exception or exemption from, or qualification to, the operation of the law creating the offence with which he is charged is upon such person. (2) The burden of proof placed by this Part upon a defendant charged with a criminal offence shall be deemed to be discharged if the court is satisfied by evidence given by the prosecution, whether on cross-examination or otherwise, that such circumstances in fact exist. (3) Nothing in sections 135 and 140 or in subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall: (a) prejudice or diminish in any respect the obligation to establish by evidence according to law any acts, omissions or intentions which are legally necessary to constitute the offence with which the person accused is charged. (b) impose on the prosecution the burden of proving that the 34  the person accused is charged. (b) impose on the prosecution the burden of proving that the circumstances or facts described in subsection (2) of this section do not exist; or (c) affect the burden placed on a defendant to prove a defence of intoxication or insanity. 34 Burden of proving exemption: S. 139(1) and 141- IGP v. Anozie- without lawful excuse Intoxication or Insanity Edoho v. State- in criminal cases, every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be respoonsible for his crime until the contrary is proven Burden imposed by other statutes: S. 60 Pharmacy Act- a person found in possession of poison or poisonous matter shall, unless he is a registered or licenced medical practitioner be deemed to be in possession for an illegal purpose 35 Facts within Defendant’s Knowledge Section 139, Evidence Act 36 STANDARD OF PROOF (CIVIL CASES) The burden of proof shall be discharged on the balance of probabilities in all civil proceeding. Section 134, EA 37 "Civil cases are decided on the principle laid out in Odofin V. Mogaji & Ors (1978) NSCC 275 where the apex Court held per Fatai Williams, JSC (as he then was) that:- "In short before a Judge before whom evidence is adduced by the parties before him in a civil case comes to a decision as to which evidence he believes or accept and which evidence he rejects, he should first of all put the totality of the testimony adduced by both parties on that imaginary scale, he will put the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff on one side of the scale and that of the defendant on the other side and weigh them together. He will then see which is heavier not by the number of witnesses called by each party, but by the quality or the probative value of the testimony of those witnesses. This is what is meant when it is said that a civil case is decided on the balance of probability" See further; Agala V. Okosin (2010) NWLR (Pt. 1202) 412 (SC)." Per HUSSAINI ,J.C.A in Nyanganjii v. Asha (2016) LPELR-43011(CA) (Pp. 20-21 paras. 38  Okosin (2010) NWLR (Pt. 1202) 412 (SC)." Per HUSSAINI ,J.C.A in Nyanganjii v. Asha (2016) LPELR-43011(CA) (Pp. 20-21 paras. A-A) 38 CIVIL CASES "The concept of balance of probability necessitates on imaginary scale as it is predicated on perception. This is not dependant on the number of witnesses needed in proof of on assertion. In other words, proof on balance of probability is not of a mathematical calculations or numbers. Rather it is the credibility of the witness/witnesses and the evidence adduced which must be worthy of truth and to be believed having regard to the situational circumstance proceed before the Court of the material time which is needing to be established. It is for instance sufficient that one witness would serve as a proof. It is the quality and not a game of numbers that should count. In other words the question that should serve the deciding factor is whether the witness's evidence is believable. The credit worthiness is paramount wherein a witness should by his evidence show that he is possessed of the fact of knowledge of that to which he is testifying to. He should testify to the truth of what he, actually and personally knows, saw, and perceived." Per OGUNBIYI ,J.C.A in Abdullah v. Suleiman & ors (2011) LPELR-9219(CA) (Pp. 22-23 paras. E) 39 CRIMINAL CASES Section 135, Evidence Act (1) If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (2) The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is, subject to section 139 of this Act, on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the action. (3) If the prosecution proves the commission of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proving reasonable doubt is shifted on to the defendant. Nwobodo v. Onoh; Omoboriowo v. Ajasin 40 What is Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt? "Section 138 (1) of the Evidence Act States that: "If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt." Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It means the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. It means a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability.  compelling and conclusive evidence. It means a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not achieved by the prosecution calling several witnesses to testify. The court is only interested in the testimony of a quality witness, so long as the charge is not one that needs corroboration. See - Miller v. Minister of Pensions 1947 2 ALL E.R. p.372, Lori v. State 1980 8 - 11 SC p.81." Per RHODES-VIVOUR ,J.S.C in JOSEPH v. STATE (2011) LPELR- 1630(SC) (Pp. 8-9 paras. F) 41 "Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all shadow of doubt. See UKPONG V. STATE (2019) LPELR-46427 (SC) wherein the apex Court held thusly: "Now, it must always be borne in mind that in criminal trials, the standard required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proof beyond any shadow of doubt. The two requirements are completely dissimilar. That is why the expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be employed conterminously with the expression "proof beyond any shadow of doubt." The law has opted for the expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt,"Dibie v State (2007) LPELR -941 (SC), Dimlong v Dimlong 2 NWLR (pt. 538) 381, 178; State v Gwangwan (2015) LPELR - 24837 (SC). I have examined most notable authorities, ancient and modern. They are all unanimous that this expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt" must remain the ubiquitous touchstone for estimating when the prosecution has discharged the burden imposed on it by law. In the realm of criminal justice, the said expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt" connotes such proof as precludes every reasonable proposition except that which it tends to support, Oladele v. Nigerian Army 6 NWLR (pt. 868) 166, 179. Hence, it connotes sufficiency of evidence, Nsofor v. State (2004) 18 NWLR (pt. 905) 292, 305..." Per NWEZE, J.S.C." Per NIMPAR ,J.C.A in Mukaila v. State (Pp. 59-60 paras. A) 42 Standard of Proof on the Defendant in a Criminal Case Section 137, Evidence Act Where in any criminal proceeding the burden of proving the existence of any fact or matter has been placed upon a defendant by virtue of the provisions of any law, the burden shall be discharged on the balance of probabilities. 43 Basis? Presumption of Innocence "Now, by Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of 43 Presumption of Innocence "Now, by Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended): "Every person who is charged with criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty provided that nothing in this Section shall invalidate any law by reason only that the law imposes upon any such person the burden of proving particular facts." By the above stated provision of the Constitution therefore, the burden has been laid fully on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person. This burden, called the ultimate burden is on the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial, as it is the prosecution that will fail if no evidence is called in prove of the charge. That burden is static and does not shift. See Sections 131(1) & (2) and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. See also Sabi v. State (2011) 14 NWLR (pt.1268) p.421; Osuagwu v. State (2012) 5 NWLR (pt.1347) p.360; The State v. Fatai Azeez & Ors (2008) 4 S.C. p.188; Kabiru v. A.G; Ogun State (2009) 5 NWLR (pt.1134) p.209 and Ike v. the State (2010) 16 NWLR (pt.1218) p.132. The burden cast on the prosecution must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof to the hilt or proof beyond shadow of doubt. It only means proof that dispels with fanciful possibilities that having nothing to do with the exercise of the trial Court's judicial and judicious discretion. As stated by Tobi, JSC (of blessed memory) in the case of Jua v. State (2010) 4 NWLR (pt.1184) p.217: Per TSAMMANI ,J.C.A in BAKARE v. STATE (2017) LPELR- 42772(CA) (Pp. 16-20 paras. B) 44 PRINCIPLE OF SEVERANCE In the Court of Appeal case of Raji & anor v. Ayinla & ors (2015) LPELR-41817(CA) (Pp. 22-24 paras. D) "Now the doctrine of severance of pleadings comes in where pleadings that have criminal averments can be separated from pleadings that have civil averments. A combination of such pleadings can be likened to an admixture of oil and water. They do not mix and can be separated. Where such an admixture exists, the pleadings that are civil in nature will be proved on a balance of probability. The principle of severance of pleadings was re-stated by this Court in the case of Hon. Ralf Okeke & Ors vs. Chief (Mrs) Edith Mike Ejezie & Ors. (2010) LPELR-4263 "If in any Civil Proceedings, the averments alleging a crime are severable and if after such severance there still remain in the pleadings of the Plaintiff or the Petitioner sufficient averments devoid of criminal imputation against any party to the proceedings and on which the plaintiff or the petitioner can succeed in his claim 45  devoid of criminal imputation against any party to the proceedings and on which the plaintiff or the petitioner can succeed in his claim or petition, the burden of proof upon the plaintiff or the petitioner is to prove his case on the balance of probability"." 45 PRINCIPLE OF SEVERANCE However, where the admixture of civil and criminal pleadings are such that can be likened to Siamese twins that share vital organs, then the principle of severance of pleadings is inapplicable. In such a situation, proof will have to be beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court in Akeredolu vs. Mimiko (2014) 1 NWLR part 1388 p.402 at 465-466 cited by the tribunal at 509-510 of the Record of Appeal stated thus: "... The Petitioner cannot run away from his responsibility on the burden of proof and on whom it lies. In the present circumstances, the allegations are civil in character as well as criminal and so intertwined or interwoven as to make severance of one genre from the other impossible. Therefore the standard of Proof must be of the higher standard which is beyond reasonable doubt." A close look at the facts in support of the Petition shows that numerous criminal allegations such as voter intimidation and financial inducements among others, were made. These allegations were so intertwined and interwoven that they really cannot be separated. Even if one tries hard to separate them, the remainder cannot possibly sustain the petition." Per DANIEL- KALIO ,J.C.A in Raji & anor v. Ayinla & ors (2015) LPELR- 41817(CA) (Pp. 22-24 paras. D) 46 CORROBORATION "It is also settled that evidence in corroboration must be an independent testimony, direct or circumstantial, which confirms in some material particular, not only that an offence has been committed, but that the accused  person has committed it. See the cases of R. v. Bakersville (1916) 2 K.B. 658 @ 667; (1916-17) All E.R. 38 @ 43 - per Lord Reading, C.J.; 12 CAR 81, R. v. Jones (1939) 27 CAR 33 and R. v. Hartley (1941) 1 K.B. 5. Although corroboration is desirable, but it is settled that whether a particular evidence can be corroborated, is for the trial Judge to decide. See the case of Reekie v. The Queen (1954) 14 WACA 501 @ 502.." Per OGBUAGU ,J.S.C in OGUNBAYO v. STATE (2007) LPELR-2323(SC) (Pp. 19-20 paras. G) 47 General Rule 200. 48 47 General Rule 200. Except as provided in sections 201 to 204 of this Act, no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. 48 "This is because firstly, it is settled that a Court can and is entitled to act on the evidence of one single witness if the witness is believed given all the circumstances of the case. A single credible witness, can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt unless where the law required corroboration. See the cases of Igbo v. The State (1975) 9-11 S.C. 129 - 136; Onafowokan v. The State (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 538 @ 552; (1987) 7 SCNJ 233; Ogoala v. The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 509 @ 533; (1991) 3 SCNJ 61; Ugwumba v. The State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 296) 660 @ 674; (1993) 6 SCNJ 217; Ohunyon v. The State (1996) 2 SCNJ 280 @ 288; Grace A. Akpabio & 2 Ors. v. The State (1994) 7-8 SCNJ (Pt. 111) 429; Gira v. The State (1996) 4 SCNJ 95 @ 101 and Effiong v. The State (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 512) 362; (1998) 5 SCNJ 158 just to mention but a few. 49 When will corroboration be required? Section 197, Evidence Act No plaintiff in any action for breach of promise of marriage shall be entitled to succeed unless his or her testimony is corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such promise; and the fact that the defendant did not answer letters affirming that he had promised to marry the plaintiff is not such corroboration. 50 An accomplice? Section 198, Evidence Act (1) An accomplice shall be a competent witness against a defendant, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice- Provided that in cases when the only proof against a person charged with a criminal offence is the evidence of an accomplice, uncorroborated in any material particular implicating the defendant, the court shall direct itself that it is unsafe to convict any person upon such evidence. (2) In this section and section 199 of this Act, an accomplice is any person who pursuant to section 7 of the Criminal Code may be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence as the defendant or is an accessory after the fact to the offence of a receiver of stolen goods.- Johnson Obi v. IGP Agent provocateur? 51  Agent provocateur? Tainted witness? 51 "An accomplice is someone not at that time jointly charged with the Accused and having no criminal charge to face. S.178 (1) of the Evidence Act provides specifically that the Court must warn the jury and in the absence of a jury warn itself of the danger of convicting solely on such uncorroborated evidence. crime are accomplices... The factual difference is that the accomplice is not charged with the offence but is now a witness for the State in respect of the charge against the accused. Therefore protection is given to the accused by S. 178 (1) of the Evidence Act and the Courts. See OKOSI v. THE STATE (1989) 1 NWLR Pt. 100 Pg. 642 at Pg. 758." Per OGUNWUMIJU ,J.C.A in ADIELE & ORS v. STATE (2011) LPELR-8835(CA) (Pp. 13-15 paras. D-D) 52 Co-defendant? Section 199, Evidence Act Where defendants are tried jointly and any of them gives evidence on his own behalf which incriminates a co-defendant, the defendant who gives such evidence shall not be considered to be an accomplice. 53 "I am of the modest opinion that the said evidence of the 3rd defendant who testified as a co-defendant could be used against the appellant vide S.T. Hon's Law of Evidence in Nigeria by S.T. Hon, SAN, where the learned author writes in page 1270 thereof that - "Also, although a defendant may not in a joint trial give evidence directly for the prosecution against a co-defendant, his defence could be such as to implicate such co-defendant, and evidence in this regard is admissible and weighty." The learned writer relied on the cases of R V Akatia (1946) 12 WACA 98, R v. Eregie (1954) 14 WACA 453, Ajani v R. (1936) 3 WACA 3 and Section 199 of the Evidence Act for the above statement of the law. Per IKYEGH ,J.C.A in IKOTUN v. FRN & ANOR (2017) LPELR-43396(CA) (Pp. 24-25 paras. E) 54 Can silence be seen as corroboration? Yes, especially in matrimonial causes? Ademola v. Ademola 55 In other words, the evidence of one credible witness accepted and believed by the Court, is sufficient to justify a conviction unless of course, such a witness, is an accomplice in which case, his 54 55 believed by the Court, is sufficient to justify a conviction unless of course, such a witness, is an accomplice in which case, his testimony would require corroboration. Secondly and also settled, is that the credibility of evidence, does not ordinarily, depend on the number of witnesses that testify on a particular point. The question is whether the evidence of one credible witness on a particular point, is believed and accepted by the Court. If the answer is in the affirmative, then, it is sufficient to support a conviction. See the cases of Ali v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 68) 1; (1988) 1 SCNJ 17; Nwambe v. The State (1995) 3 SCNJ 77 @ 94-95; Abogede v. The State (1996) 4 SCNJ 221 @ 233; (1996) 37 LRCN 674 and Alhaji Babuga v. The State (1996) 7 SCNJ 217 @ 231." Per OGBUAGU ,J.S.C in Nkebisi & anor v. State (2010) LPELR-2046(SC) (Pp. 21-22 paras. B) 56 Other Instances Treason and Treasonable Offences S. 201(1) E.A Perjury S. 202 EA Exceeding Speed Limit S. 203(1) E.A Sedition S. 204, EA Unsworn Evidence of a Child S. 209(3) E.A 57 Corroboration as a Matter of Practice Sexual Offences Sworn Evidence of a Child Matrimonial Cases Confessional Statement by an Accused