The appellate courts have elucidated certain principles being conditions of admitting such evidence which are so stringent that there exist only few instances before our courts where such adducing of evidence was granted by the court.
The principles were outlined in the case of** OKPANAM V. SGE NIG LTD 7 NWLR (Pt. 559) 537 as follows**;
- The evidence sought to be adduced must be such as could not have been with reasonable diligence obtained for use at the trial, or a matter which has occurred after the judgment in the trial court.
- The evidence should be such that, if admitted, it would have an important, not necessarily crucial effect, on the whole case, and
- The evidence must be such as is apparently credible in the sense that it is capable of being believed, and it need not to be incontrovertible.
- It mu
st be stated that the discretion to grant leave to adduce new evidence is invariably exercised for the furtherance of justice.
The court held in the case of BABALOLA V. SUNDAY (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 441 at 470 thus;
“There is of course the very real and present danger of allowing a person who for one reason or another, had called insufficient evidence at the trial, with relative ease to bring forward for the first time before this court the evidence which could have, but was not adduced before the tribunal”
The courts will guard against the above scenario but will also make room for the adducing of vital additional evidence where it is satisfied that the conditions and guiding principles stated above are met.
The procedure for this is to bring a motion before the Court of Appeal supported by an affidavit which will contain a deposition of facts in line with the conditions required for adducing additional evidence, and attach a copy of the proposed piece of evidence to the affidavit in support of the motion.