It is worthwhile to note that the fact that an Affidavit and a
Written Statement on Oath are both sworn before the Commissioner of
Oaths does not make the similar in form. The form of an Affidavit
is well stated in the Evidence Act whereas there is no law that
states that the Statement on Oath must conform to the form as
required of Affidavit stated in the Evidence Act.This point has
been given credence by the court in the case of SAMUEL LAMBERT
& ANOR vs CHIEF A.S.B.C.OKUJAGU(2015)ALL FWLR(PART808)Pp
665-666 paras E-A thus: “…it is therefore very certain that even
the rules of court admit that affidavit and statement of witness on
oath are distinct and different from the other.The form of an
affidavit under the Evidence Act is well specified by law.See
section 117 and 118 of the Evidence Act 2011.There is no law that
specified that all sworn documents or Oaths must comply with the
provisions of the Evidence Act as relates to affidavit.It is therefore not a valid
argument to say that sworn deposition or statement of witness under
the civil procedure rules must accord with the form of an
affidavit…” I have in the court room seen legal practitioners
make heavy weather as to the fact that the Statement on Oath must
be signed by the deponent in the presence of the Commissioner of
Oaths.Some of them go as far as asking questions such as:”You
signed this oath in your lawyers office?or “Where did you depose to
this oath?”and when the witness says he signed it in the lawyers
office they make heavy weather out of it. From the little law that
I know,the statement on oath unlike the affidavit which derives its
force once signed before the Commissioner of oaths, the Statement
on Oath derives its force when it is adopted by the witness in the
witness box.Little wonder a party may file statement on oath for
three witness and end up calling just one witness whose statement
on oath is then adopted in the witness box. Furthermore,while the
Affidavit should be in numbered paragraphs as provided for in the
Evidence Act,the Statement on Oath need not be in numbered
paragraphs.Infact,it can be in prose form. Some have also argued
that the Statement on Oath shall not contain extraneous matters,by
way of objection,prayer or legal argument or conclusion.This
argument and others above have been laid to rest by the court in
SAMUEL LAMBERT& ANOR vs CHIEF A.S.B.C OKUJAGU(supra) thus:
“…the innovation of filing written statements on oath of witnesses
to be called in a civil case is a very good proactive and
progressive innovation of our learned drafts- men. The import is
not to clone an affidavit or set up parallel affidavits
evidence.The import is to reduce the time expended in taking notes
from witnesses in court and by extension,reduce the stress of the
trial judges whose lot it is within our jurisdiction and
adjudicatory clime to record in long hand viva voce evidence of
witnesses. The rules of the High Court do not intend to encrust the
written statement on oath with the formal garb of an affidavit as
tailored by Section 107 to 120 of the Evidence Act 2011.We must
therefore be watchful not to upload written statements on oath
simply devised by the civil procedure rules with the burden
required to be borne by an affidavit under the Evidence Act.” In
conclusion,one can not help but conclude that there exists credible
distinction between an Affidavit and a Written Statement on Oath.
By Okoko Ayezu Tamarapreye: zuaye_mara@yahoo.com 08063695554
It is worthwhile to note that the fact that an Affidavit and a
Written Statement on Oath are both sworn before the Commissioner of
Oaths does not make the similar in form.
The form of an Affidavit is well stated in the Evidence Act whereas
there is no law that states that the Statement on Oath must conform
to the form as required of Affidavit stated in the Evidence
Act.This point has been given credence by the court in the case of
SAMUEL LAMBERT & ANOR vs CHIEF A.S.B.C.OKUJAGU(2015)ALL
FWLR(PART808)Pp 665-666 paras E-A thus: “…it is therefore very
certain that even the rules of court admit that affidavit and
statement of witness on oath are distinct and different from the
other.The form of an affidavit under the Evidence Act is well
specified by law.See section 117 and 118 of the Evidence Act
2011.There is no law that specified that all sworn documents or
Oaths must comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act as
relates to affidavit.It is therefore not a valid
argument to say that sworn deposition or statement of witness under
the civil procedure rules must accord with the form of an
affidavit…” I have in the court room seen legal practitioners
make heavy weather as to the fact that the Statement on Oath must
be signed by the deponent in the presence of the Commissioner of
Oaths.Some of them go as far as asking questions such as:”You
signed this oath in your lawyers office?or “Where did you depose to
this oath?”and when the witness says he signed it in the lawyers
office they make heavy weather out of it. From the little law that
I know,the statement on oath unlike the affidavit which derives its
force once signed before the Commissioner of oaths, the Statement
on Oath derives its force when it is adopted by the witness in the
witness box.Little wonder a party may file statement on oath for
three witness and end up calling just one witness whose statement
on oath is then adopted in the witness box. Furthermore,while the
Affidavit should be in numbered paragraphs as provided for in the
Evidence Act,the Statement on Oath need not be in numbered
paragraphs.Infact,it can be in prose form. Some have also argued
that the Statement on Oath shall not contain extraneous matters,by
way of objection,prayer or legal argument or conclusion.This
argument and others above have been laid to rest by the court in
SAMUEL LAMBERT& ANOR vs CHIEF A.S.B.C OKUJAGU(supra) thus:
“…the innovation of filing written statements on oath of witnesses
to be called in a civil case is a very good proactive and
progressive innovation of our learned drafts- men. The import is
not to clone an affidavit or set up parallel affidavits
evidence.The import is to reduce the time expended in taking notes
from witnesses in court and by extension,reduce the stress of the
trial judges whose lot it is within our jurisdiction and
adjudicatory clime to record in long hand viva voce evidence of
witnesses. The rules of the High Court do not intend to encrust the
written statement on oath with the formal garb of an affidavit as
tailored by Section 107 to 120 of the Evidence Act 2011.We must
therefore be watchful not to upload written statements on oath
simply devised by the civil procedure rules with the burden
required to be borne by an affidavit under the Evidence Act.” In
conclusion,one can not help but conclude that there exists credible
distinction between an Affidavit and a Written Statement on Oath.
By Okoko Ayezu Tamarapreye: zuaye_mara@yahoo.com 08063695554
Read more https://nairalaw.com/statement-on-oath-and-affidavit-the-distinction-by-okoko-ayezu-tamarapreye/