“The controversy or dispute is to be proved or disproved by affidavit evidence to be supported by documentary exhibits, if available. Section 107 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is couched as follows:-
“A Court may, in any civil proceeding make an order at any stage of such proceeding directing that specified facts may be proved at the trial by affidavit with or without the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination: Provided that where a party desires the attendance of such deponent for cross-examination the Court shall require his attendance for that purpose where this would not result in unjustifiable delay or expense”.
Section 115(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 reads as follows:-
“Every affidavit used in the Court shall contain only a statement of facts and circumstances to which the witness deposes, either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true.”
Learned counsel submitted written addresses in the Court below. The effect of the provisions of Section 115(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 is that any person that deposes to facts in an affidavit or counter-affidavit is “the witness” or a “witness” in the proceedings. The legal effect is that the matters in controversy were to be proved by the facts deposed or sworn in the affidavit and counter-affidavits of the litigating parts supported by statutes or documentary exhibits, if available.” Per TUR, J.C.A. (Pp. 56-57, Paras. B-B)
OKECHUKWU v. UBA PLC & ANOR CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43100(CA)