NIMASA & ANOR v. WASAGU & ANOR
(2023) LPELR-60502(CA)
“By Section 117 (1) (b) of the Evidence Act, the full name of the deponent of an affidavit shall be stated. It cannot be said who the deponent of the supporting affidavit is. I would have put this down to a defect in form which can be cured under Section 113 of the Evidence Act; but given that who the actual deponent is, would likely have a far-reaching effect on the depositions in paragraph 3 (with nine sub-paragraphs) of the supporting affidavit, I consider the defect fundamental and substantial that it cannot be cured by virtue of the provisions of Section 113 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, by Section 117 (4) of the Evidence Act, an affidavit when sworn shall be signed by the deponent. The supporting affidavit has a signature of a deponent; but who is this deponent that signed? Is it Victor Edem, or is it Adeyemi Robert? The confusion as to who the deponent is, necessarily implies that since the signature cannot be ascribed to a particular deponent, the supporting affidavit cannot be taken as having been signed as required by Section 117 (4) of the Evidence Act. This is a fundamental defect that cannot be cured under Section 113 of the Evidence Act. See IGBO v. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, NASARAWA STATE (2017) LPELR (44588) 1 at 10-13 and ENENCHE v. MINISTER OF THE FCT (2021) LPELR (52815) 1 at 22-23. Accordingly, the Applicants’ supporting affidavit is incompetent and it is hereby struck out.” Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Pp 10 – 11 Paras E – F)