BEFORE any court seized of a matter whether civil or criminal can arrive at a just decision, evidence is needed to prove the facts of the case. Such evidence could be documentary or oral from material and relevant witness or witnesses.
To that extent, the importance of witness (es) to the successful and just determination of a case by the court, cannot by any stretch of imagination be over emphasized,
Indeed, witness (es) constitute the vehicles through which the courts navigate the bumpy roads of litigations before arriving at the judgment.
Accordingly, a preponderance of evidence is needed for proof of facts in civil matters while such evidence with regards to criminal causes should be able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Be that as it may, the number of witnesses that give evidence is not as important as the quality, cogency and relevancy of the evidence provided by the witness (es) to the court in order to prove the facts of the case.
Many litigants or even prosecutors more often than not assemble a legion of witnesses with the erroneous hope that such army of witnesses would strengthen their cases.
This, most of the time, turns out to be an illusion as indeed the evidence of a single eyewitness ,which the court believes and acts on, can secure success in the matter for the party in whose favour the witness testifies.
Our courts have indeed made it abundantly clear and unambiguous in a long line of decided cases that the success or failure of a matter before a court does not depend on the number of witnesses called but on the quality and credibility of such testimony.
In the case of Odutola v Mabogunje (2013) 53 NSCQ P.67, Nguta JSC has this to say “It is trite law that success or failure of a case is not the function of the number of witnesses called by either side. It depends on the quality, and cogency and relevancy of the evidence led”
Similarly, in Illodigiwe v State(2013) WRN.P.27 line 15 Chukwuma-Ene JSC, maintained that “Where a trial court has found the evidence of an eye witnesses unequivocal and true, it is bound to act on it , irrespective that it is evidence of a lone eyewitness of the crime”
Even in a murder charge, a cogent, credible ,relevant, material evidence of a single witness if believed by the court can sustain a criminal matter on murder. This position of the law was eloquently expressed in Obidike V State where Fabiyi JSC emphasized thus “It should be further depicted that the evidence of a single witness as herein, if believed by the court can sustain a charge even in a criminal matter relating to murder. The trial court believed the evidence of PW1 as to how the appellant and his cohort killed the deceased and disposed off his body. The court below affirmed same. I feel they were in order” see also Babuga v the state (1996) 7NWLR (Pt.460). 279. Alli v state(1988) 1NWLR (P.t.58) at 70.
The same position of law is applicable in civil matters. In Mogaji v Odofin (1978) 4SC 91 AT 94, the Supreme court stressed the immutable fact that the quality of the probative value of the testimony of witnesses remains the barometer for measuring the success or failure of a case rather than the quantity of the witnesses.
In the words of the court, “In short, before a Judge before whom evidence is adduced by parties in a civil case, comes to a decision as to which evidence he believes or accepts and which evidence he rejects, he should first of all put the totality of the testimony adduced by both parties on an imaginary scale. He will then see which is heavier not by the number of witnesses called by each party but by the quality of the probative value of the testimony of those witnesses” See Odutola V Mabogunje( supra)
What could be gleaned from the foregoing is that a party to a dispute does not need a volley of witnesses to win a case as the law does not impose a duty on anybody as to the number of witnesses to call to prove his case.
Be that as it may, there some exceptions where corroboration is needed before a party can successfully prove its case.
Corroboration according to Black’s Law dictionary is evidence supplementary to that already given and tending to strengthen or confirm it. Additional evidence of a different source to the same point. See Habibu Musa v state (2013) 53 NSCQR P98 .
Corroboration therefore stands to invigorate the evidence already before the court and section 200- 204 of the Evidence Act 2011, left no one in doubt as to cases or circumstances when corroboration must be called to help in ensuring success of a matter before the court when it provides thus ”Except as provided in sections 201- 204 of this Act, no particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any facts”
For the sake of clarity, sections 201, 202, 203 and 204 of the Act are concerned with treason and treasonable offence, perjury, exceeding speed limits and sedition respectively.
These are the exceptions which require corroborations and outside these offences corroboration is of no use.
This position was clearly adumbrated in the case of Osuagwu v State (2013) 53 NSCQR. PP.581-582, where Rhodes Vivour JSC held that “ It is the duty of the prosecutor (respondent) to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and this entails calling material witnesses to establish the essential elements of the crime.
“The prosecution is not obliged to call a host of witnesses where corroboration is not required; a single witness can easily establish a case beyond reasonable doubt”
It should therefore be understood that the aphorism that ‘two heads are better than one’ does not hold sway with regards to success or failure of a case before court except in matters outlined in sections 201-204 of the evident Act which require corroboration, rather what matters in law is the quality of the evidence and the probative values that the courts ascribe to same.
