EDU VS. C.A.W.R.R.D (2001)

Background

This appeal arises from a decision by the lower court that struck out a motion for interlocutory injunction filed by Chief Francis B. Edu and three others, representing various communities in Cross River State. The plaintiffs sought to determine the status of a lease agreement concerning the BOJE COCOA ESTATE, asserting that it had become defunct due to breaches by the defendants' predecessors. They filed a motion to prevent the defendant from entering or taking over the estate pending the resolution of their originating summons.

Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court was correct in striking out the motion on the grounds that the affidavit supporting it was improperly sworn. Specific points of contention included:

1. The competence of the deponent to provide evidence regarding facts not within his personal knowledge.
2. Whether the affidavit complied with the provisions of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the supporting affidavit did not meet the standards set by sections 86, 88, and 89 of the Evidence Act. An affidavit must exclusively contain statements of fact based on the deponent's personal knowledge or true information derived from others, along with their particulars.

Court Findings

The Court noted that:

1. The deponent, Matthew Ekpo, lacked personal knowledge of most facts stated in the original affidavit and failed to provide the necessary details about his informants in his further and better affidavit.
2. The trial judge was justified in concluding that the affidavit's defects rendered the motion incompetent.
3. There existed no substantial evidence supporting the appellant's motion, making its strike out a justified measure by the trial court.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the earlier ruling of the trial court. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for affidavits, as non-compliance could lead to rejection of the motion.

Significance

This case highlights critical principles governing affidavit evidence in Nigerian law. It underscores the necessity for deponents to possess personal knowledge of the facts and comply strictly with statutory requirements. Additionally, it illustrates the authority of appellate courts to evaluate evidence when appropriate, asserting that inadequate or unsubstantiated affidavit content will jeopardize the success of motions depending on it.