THE role of witness (es) in the successful or failure and indeed, just determination of a case before any court of competent jurisdiction cannot by any stretch of imagination be over emphasized as they through their evidence, crucial role in assisting the court to decide the case one way or the other.
Indeed, witnesses (es) through their evidence constitute the vehicles through which the courts navigate the litigations’ highway and the associated legal fireworks before arriving at a judgment.
It is in view of the influence of evidence of witnesses to the outcome of a matter that many Litigants and their counsel more often than not assemble a galaxy of witnesses with the erroneous belief that such legion of witnesses and their testimonies in court would avail them an upper hand in the legal tussle.
More often than not, this turns out to be a mere wistful thinking or illusion as generally, the number of witnesses that give evidence in a case is not as important as the quality, cogency and relevancy of the evidence the witnesses place before the court in order to prove the facts of the case.
While the number of witnesses may sway the court in arriving at a decision, this can only happen if the evidence is relevant and credible and not necessarily the quantity.
It is therefore crystal clear that credible, cogent and relevant evidence of a single eye witness which the court believes and acts on is sufficient to secure victory for the party in whose favour the evidence is given.
This time honoured position of the law that the success or failure of a matter before a court whether civil or criminal generally, does not depend on the volley of witnesses called but on the quality and credibility of such testimony of the witness, has been adumbrated by the courts in a plethora of cases.
For instance, in the case of Mogaji v Odofin (1978) 4SC 91 at 94, the Supreme court in giving eloquent expression to the legal position 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 held thus “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”
Again, in Odutola v Mabogunje (2013) 53 NSCQ P.67, NgutaJSC took the position that “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 the case of Illodigiwe v State(2013) WRN.P.27 line 15, Chukwuma-EneJSC,had this to say “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”
It does not matter whether the case before the court is a heinous crime for instance a murder charge or a simple offence, a cogent, credible, relevant, material evidence of a single witness if accepted by the court can sustain a conviction or acquittal depending on probative value that such evidence elicits from the court. Thus in Obidike V State Fabiyi JSC eloquently stated that “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 co-horts 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.
It follows that a party to a dispute before a court of competent jurisdiction does not necessarily need an army of witnesses to win a case as the law does not generally impose a duty on anybody as to the number of witnesses to call to prove his case.
Be that as it may our law of evidence recognizes and indeed provides for clear and specific circumstances where the law requires evidence of more than one witness to sustain the proof of facts before the court. These revolve around cases that require corroboration in proof of the matter before court.
According to Black’s Law dictionary, corroboration is the 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 .
Essentially, corroboration has the responsibility of invigorating the evidence already before the court and sections 200-204 of the Evidence Act 2011, outlines circumstances when corroboration becomes inexorably tied to the successful proof of a matter before the court.
Specifically, corroboration is required in proof of facts with respect to treason, and treasonable offence, perjury, exceeding speed limits and sedition.
Accordingly the evidence Act (supra) provides” 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. Corroboration does not however; entail calling a community of witnesses rather it involves calling material witness (es).
In the case of Osuagwu v State (2013) 53 NSCQR. PP.581-582, 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 is indeed crystal clear that the aphorism that ‘two heads are better than one’ with regards to success or failure of a case before court remains vital and applicable in respect of matters outlined in sections 201-204 of the evident Act which require corroboration, In other words corroboration is inexorably linked to success of cases enumerated in the Act.
