“The phrase “Truth”, “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is commonly employed by witnesses in the course of oath-taking to enable them to testify. The phrase is defined at page 1657 of Black’s Law Dictionary ante as follows:
“The words used in the common oath administered to a witness who is about to testify (do you swear or affirm that you shall tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?) The purpose of the second part of the oath is to preclude the possibility of supressio very; the purpose of the third part is to preclude the possibility of suggestio falsi. See Suppressio Veri; Suggestio Falsi”.
A party and his witnesses ought to take an oath to speak the truth regarding the matters in dispute to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision. In Nnajiofor Vs. Ukonu (1986) 7 S.C. (pt. 2) 92 the Supreme Court held at page 122 lines 1-4 that, “…a witness who testified falsely on matters which are within his knowledge personally leaves no room for any judge to credit him with any credibility in issues in contest before him”. In Blake Vs. Mowatt (1856), 21 Bea Vs. 603 Romily M. R. held at page 613 that “it is the leading principle of the equity administration in this Court, that truth shall govern all transactions, and that one who deludes another in a contract, or permits him to be deluded, and takes advantage of that delusion, cannot afterwards complain, that, if the contract be set aside, he will be in a worse situation than if the contract had never been entered into” – cited with approval by McCardie J; in Armstrong Vs. Jackson (1916-17) ALL E.R Rep. 1117 at 1128. See also 35. Digest 639.” Per TUR, J.C.A. (Pp. 39-40, Paras. D-B)
OSONDU & ANOR v. A-G ENUGU STATE & ORS CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43096(CA)