It is trite that three main criteria govern the admissibility of documents.[1] They are:
- That the document is pleaded
- That the document is relevant
- That the document is admissible in law.
– All admissible evidence are relevant but not all relevant evidence are admissible
The Evidence Act does not provide any definite meaning of what relevant facts are but generally relevant means connected with the matter at hand. Pertinent and relevant evidence is that which is applicable to the issue and which ought to be received. Admissibility on the other hand is the concept in law of evidence that determines whether or not evidence can be received by the Court.
Evidence must first be relevant but even relevant evidence must be tested for its admissibility. When it is said that a piece of evidence is admissible, it means that the evidence is relevant and is one that can be admitted by the Court because it does not offend any exclusionary rule. A fact ordinarily admissible may become inadmissible for some legal reason or the fact is too remote to be material. Thus a suspect’s confession may be relevant but if the confession was obtained involuntarily, it will be excluded as inadmissible. In other words for the piece of evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant but this is not necessarily vice versa since a piece of evidence could be relevant without being admissible.[2]
[1] See Okonji v Njokanma (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt 638) 250; Okoye v Obiaso (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt 1195) 145 at 163.
[2]Ifaramoye v State (2017) LPELR-42031(SC) 33-34, paras.C-B.