Effect of Failure of an Adversary to Cross-Examine a Witness

CASE TITLE:  AKWA IBOM STATE GOVT v. UMANAH (2025) LPELR-81232(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 26TH MAY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Akwa Ibom State, Abak Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice Ini-Abasi T. Udobong on the 30th day of October, 2018, in Suit No: H/64/2014, wherein the judgment was in favour of the Respondent.

The Respondent (Claimant at the trial Court) commenced an action against the Appellant (as Defendant) seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) The sum of N427,500,000 (Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being the value of the plant/machinery asset destroyed and scrapped by the Defendant’s agents, by its 2007 valuation.

(b) The sum representing the difference in the sum between 2007 and the date of Judgment based on the difference in the exchange rate of the Naira to the US dollar at the two respective times or periods.

(c) Interest on the sums at 10% per annum from date of Judgment till full liquidation of the judgment sums.”

During the trial the Respondent called two witnesses and tendered some documents, while the Appellant called one witness and tendered some documents. Also on the 3rd July, 2018, the trial Court suo motu ordered a visit to the locus in quo, which was visited on the same day. At the close of the hearing of the witnesses’ testimonies, the parties exchanged their written addresses. On the 30th day of October, 2018, the judgment was delivered by the trial Court in favour of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted and considered the issues raised by the Appellant, thus:

1. Whether the Court, in relying wholly on the testimony of the Respondent’s 2nd witness in his Judgment after foreclosing the Appellant from cross-examination of the witness, has not deprived the Appellant of a fair hearing?

2. Considering the entire circumstances of this case, whether the trial Court was correct in holding that the Respondent’s case was meritorious and should be allowed?

3. Considering the facts of this case, whether the learned trial Judge was right in granting the Respondent the relief sought.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: Whether a party who had an opportunity of being heard but did not utilize it can bring an action for breach of fair hearing.
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: Whether the right to fair hearing is meant for only one party in a case
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether an unsigned document is admissible in evidence.
• EVIDENCE- ORAL/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether oral evidence can be used to vary the content of a written agreement/document
• EVIDENCE- PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY: Presumption of regularity for official or judicial acts carried out; effect of failure to rebut same.
• EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: How a trial court should evaluate evidence
• EVIDENCE- CROSS-EXAMINATION: Fundamental nature of right to cross-examination of a witnesses of the adverse party; Whether a party who is afforded an opportunity but refuses or abandons his right can turn round to complain of denial of fair hearing
• EVIDENCE- CROSS-EXAMINATION: Effect of failure of an adversary to cross-examine a witness.
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ADJOURNMENT: Whether the grant or refusal of an application for adjournment is at the discretion of Court; what the court will consider in exercising its discretion

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol