SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

1.0       INTRODUCTION

2.0       OBJECTIVES

• MAIN CONTENTS
• SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE AND COMMON LAW
• COMMON LAW RULE OF SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE IN NIGERIA
• GENERAL RULE OF SIMILAR FACT
• SIMILAR FACTS UNDER THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
• OTHER SIMILAR FACTS EVIDENCE
• EXCLUSIONARY ASPECT

4.0       CONCLUSION

5.0       SUMMARY

6.0       TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT

7.0       REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

Evidence of Similar Facts is the evidence that tend to establish the fact in issue by proving the previous similar acts or omissions of the accused person. Evidence of general resemblance or general similar facts is  inadmissible.  They  are  admissible if they show  not only a general resemblance but also such a particular resemblance as to fix the  accused as the actor on the particular case.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this unit is to be able to make the students to understand the concept of ‘’Similar Facts”, its provision under the Evidence Act, its application to a case and the possible effect. At the end of this unit the student should be able to demonstrate a perfect understanding of the similar facts Evidence.

MAIN CONTENTS

• Similar Fact Evidence and Common Law

Prior to the 19th   Century, similar fact evidence was excluded unless it had a particular function. In the 19th Century, the reverse situation  prevailed  and  similar  fact evidence becomes, prima facie, admissible unless it  showed  only  propensity.  In  1894, exclusionary rule was restored and fact was confirmed by the Privy Council in  the case of MakinvAttorneyGeneralofNewSouthWales (1894) A C 59 at 65. This is a case in which a husband and his wife were charged for murdering a  baby  and during investigation the remains of the baby and that of three other babies were found buried in the garden at the back of the house of the Makins. Further investigation revealed the remains of seven other babies were found in the yard of the house where the  Makins once lived. Considering all these evidence, the  Privy Council accepted them as evidence on the ground that they showed that the accused persons had deliberately killed the baby in question. In his judgement, Lord Herschel stated the common law rule on similar fact as follows:

It is undoubtedly not competent for the prosecution to adduce evidence tending to show that the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment for the purposes of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his criminal conduct or character, to  have  committed the offence for which he is being tried. On the  other  hand,  the mere fact that the evidence adduced tends to show the   commission of other crime does not render it inadmissible if it be relevant to an issue before the jury: and it may be so relevant if it bears upon the question whether the  acts  alleged  to  constitute the crime charged in the indictment were designed or  accidental,  or to rebut a defence which would otherwise be opened to the accused

The position above stated was also upheld in the case of R.vSims (1946)1 K B 531. This case involves a charge of the offence of sodomy and gross indecency of the accused with four men. The Court held that the evidence of each accuser was admissible.

But it is worthy of note that the position in the criminal case of R.v Sims (1946)1 K B 531 was reverted three years later in the case of Noor Mohammed v R (1949) AC 182 where the Privy Council held that evidence of previous similar acts were wrongly admitted in evidence and the conviction of the accused person was quashed.

Notwithstanding the position held in the case of Noor Mohammed v R (1949) AC 182 above, the principle laid down by Lord Herschel in Makin’s case was later affirmed by the House of Lords in the case of Harris v DPP (1952) AC  694  though the  appeal of  the appellant was successful.

Noteworthy is the case of Boardman v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] 3 All E. R. 887, where the House of Lords held that evidence of similar offence will be admissible in an exceptional situation where it shows that those other offences share with the offence charged common features of such an unusual nature and striking similarity that it would be an affront to common sense to assert that the similarity    was explicable on the basis of coincidence. The case stated that in admitting such evidence the judge should exercise his discretion to admit the evidence only on the satisfaction of the following:

• That its probative force in relation to an issue in the trial outweighs the prejudicial effect, and
• That there was no possibility of collaboration between the witnesses

 Common Law Rule of Similar Fact Evidence in Nigeria

Prior to the advent of the Evidence Act in Nigeria, the common law rule of similar evidence as upheld in the case of Makin were made applicable in some Nigerian cases, prominent among which is the case of R v Adeniji [1937] 3 WACA 185. In this case the appellant was charged with the offence of being in possession of moulds for minting coins under the Criminal Code. The Court held that the evidence of previous uttering of counterfeit coins by him was admissible in order to establish guilty knowledge.

Also in the case of Akerele v R [1943] A.C. 255, a similar position as in the above case was maintained. In this case the appellant a Medical Practitioner gave injections of mixtures to a number of children among who is the deceased who died as a result of the injection given by the appellant. At the trial the court held that the evidence of the fact that other children died as a result of the injection given to them by the accused at the same time and from the same mixture was held admissible.

It is noteworthy that such decisions as above would have been reached even after the advent of the Evidence Act because, it tends to look like the position in the case of Makin as examined above, has become adopted in our Evidence Act, particularly in Section 17 of the Evidence Act 1990 which is now Section 12 of the Evidence Act 2011 and it provides as follows:

When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention or to rebut any defence that may otherwise be open to the defendant, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

The material content of the above provision has a very close resemblance to the Common Law principle on Similar Evidence as given by Lord Herschel. This position stipulates that similar fact evidence will only be admissible if it is relevant to the issue whether the acts alleged to constitute the offence charged were designed or accidental.

Take note that notwithstanding the admissibility of similar fact evidence  under section 12 of the Evidence Act 2011, this provision is not applicable automatically, as the Court has power to exclude or  jettis on  such evidence if  it is considered evidence prejudicial to the fair trial of the accused.

The provisions of Section 12 of the Evidence Act 2011 has been subjected to several argument as regards its concept implication which is believed to be devoid of the real principle contained in the MAKIN’s case which allows the  evidence of similar facts ‘’to rebut a defence which  would otherwise be  open to an accused person’’. It has been confirmed in response to  the  argument  that there are no reported authorities t o the contrary in Nigeria. It has also been asserted that notwithstanding the fact that Section 12 of the Evidence Act 2011 is devoid of the direct provision of the common  law  rule  which  allows the  evidence of similar facts ‘’to rebut a defence which would otherwise be open to an accused person’’, such provisions can be read into when considered along with the provision of Section 5 of  the  Evidence Act 1990 which allows the admissibility of evidence which apart from  the  Act would be admissible.

A closer look at the Evidence Act 2011 tends to show a technical content departure from the above position as the  provision of Section 5 of  the Evidence 1990 is no longer retained in its entirety in the Evidence Act 2011 which has altered the position that nothing will prejudice the admissibility of any evidence which apart from the provision of the Act be admissible. The Evidence Act 2011 now subjects the admissibility of  any evidence other than the one provided in the  Act  only to  those  contained in  any other legisla tion in Nigeria. See Section 3 Evidence Act 2011, it provides thus;

Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the  admissibility of  any evidence that is made  admissible by  any  other legislation validly  in force in Nigeria.

It is noteworthy, that by the application of the principle of Stare Decisis, any case in which our courts have made pronouncements using the  MAKIN’s case  as a  bench mark  will make the  same position as  applied under Section 5  of the Evidence Act 1990 to be applicable under Section 3 of the Evid ence Act 2011, because judges decisions are also part of the Nigerian Legislation.

On Similar Facts evidence, it is very important for you to know that for an evidence of previous act to be given to sustain a charge, the defence of the accused must not be an outright denial of the offence charged and such evidence must be very connected to the acts of the accused . See the case of Al-Hassan v Commissioner of Police [1944] 10 WACA  238 .  Here  the  Court held that the evidence of previous extortion of bribes fro m other persons is inadmissible on the ground that the evidence  has  no  bearing  with  the present charge.

Similar Facts evidence is applicable to both civil and criminal cases alike. Evidence of similar facts can  be  adduced in  civil cases. See the  case of  Hales v Ker [1908] 2 KB 601 . Here the Plaintiff sued the Defendant who  is  a  barber for negligence in shaving him with an  unsterilized  razor  thereby  infecting  him with ringworm. Evidence that the  other persons  shaved  by  the  Defendant had contacted the same infection was held admissible.

In an action for negligence for performing a surgical operation carelessly evidence that in other such operation, he had been negligent or skilful is inadmissible.

See also the case of Hollingham v Head (1858). Here the issue was whether plaintiff contracted with the defendant subject to special terms. Evidence sought to be adduced was the fact of similar contracts with  other  persons,  subject  to  these  special  terms.  This was held inadmissible; the fact that a man (or a woman) has once or more in his life acted in a particular way does not make it probable that he or she so acted on a given occasion.

Suppose P made the same contract D, Y, Z. The claim would probably have succeeded.

• The General Rule

The general rule specifies the facts of which evidence may be given and it has its root in the Common law rule as examined and explained above. The Evidence Act stipulates that evidence may be given facts in issue and relevant facts and “of no others”.

The court, in exercise of its discretion may exclude an otherwise relevant fact, if it considers;

• That the prejudicial tendency outweighs its probative value
• Evidence is obtained illegally or by some tricks
• Strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against an accused

 General evidence of similar facts is NOT admissible to prove the facts in issue. This assertion can be understood from il lustrations as follows:

1. Koyo, a brewer supplies beer. He supplied beer to Haruna and there was no complaint. It was good beer. He supplied beer to Dogo  who  complained  that  the  beer which Kodgo supplied was bad. Kodjo denies and seek to put in  evidence  that  the beer he supplied are good beer and had supplied good beer to Haruna.

2. Ado obtained N50,000.00 by false pretence (4-1-9-) from Folashade in 2009. Ado also obtained N20,000.00 by false pretence from Chukwu in 2010. Again he has been arrested for obtaining N150,000.00 from Fatima by false pretence. He is charged to court. Ado denies the  The  prosecution  seeks  to  calFolashade  and Chukwu to testify to previous fraud or to tender evidence  of  previous  conviction  for  obtaining by false pretence.

What the brewer and Ado seek to do is to give evidence of facts similar to a fact in issue. Had both of them adduced evidence as regards the same line of transaction as with the case at hand, the evidences would have been admissible.

The general rule of Similar Facts evidence is established in the expression of Lord Herschell. He stated the general rule when he said as follows:

“it is undoubtedly not competent for  the  prosecution  to  adduce  evidence tending to show that the accused had been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment; for the purpose of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely form his criminal conduct or character  to  have committed the offence for which he is being tried.”

See the case of Makins v Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] AC 59

But it must be noted that a contrary view to the above was maintained by Lord Goddard when he argued as follows:

“if one starts with the assumption that all  evidence  tending  to  show  a  disposition towards a particular issue must be excluded unless justified, then the justification of evidence of this kind is that it tends to rebut a defence otherwise open to the adduced; but if one starts with the general proposition that all  evidence that is logically  probative  is  admissible  unless  excluded,  when  evidence of this kind does not have to seek a justification but is admissible irrespective of the issues raised by the defence and this we think is the correct view”.

Lord Goddard’s position was overruled by The Privy Council when it confirmed the position as presented by Lord Herschel.

Similar Facts Evidence may be admissible if there is a special connection (i.e. a nexus), between the facts in issue and the similar facts. Such special connection or nexus  may  arise from the following:

1. Modus operandi, or system
2. Common origin
3. Abnormal propensities

Thus, from one of the illustrations given above, if Kodjo had sought to adduce  evidence  that the beer he supplied to Haruna and Dogo were brewed together, it  would  be  evidence of common source or origin and thus, will be admissible. On the other hand, the mere fact that the evidence adduced tends to show the commission of other crimes does not render it inadmissible. If it be relevant to the crime before the jury and it may be so relevant if it bears upon the question whether the acts alleged to constitute the crime charged in the indictment were designed or accidental, or  to  rebut  a  defence  which would otherwise be open to the accused.

• Similar Facts under the Law of Evidence

1. Section 1 Evidence Act 2011: Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts. The Act provides as follows:

Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non- existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as declared to be relevant and of no others.

1. Section 12 Evidence Act 2011: Facts bearing on questions whether act was accidental or intentional. The Act provides as follows:

When  there  is  a  question  whether  an  act  was  accidental   or  done  with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences in each of which the person doing he act was concerned, is relevant.

1. Section 35 Evidence Act 2011: Acts of Possession and Enjoyment of Land. The Act provides as follows:

Acts of possession and enjoyment of land may be evidence of ownership or of a right or occupancy not only of the particular piece or quantity of land with reference to which such acts are done, but also of other land so situated or connected with it by locality or similarly that what is true as to the one piece of land is likely to be true of the other piece of land.

See the case of Okechukwu and Others v Okafor and Others [1961] All NLR 685. Here the court held that the acts of possession and enjoyment of lands adjoining the disputed one was enough to support their claim of title to that one by virtue of the section

Section 36(1) Evidence Act Evidence of Scienter for receiving stolen property The Act provides as follows:

• Whenever any person is being proceeded against for receiving any property, knowing it to have been stolen or for having in his possession stolen property, for the purpose of proving guilty knowledge, there may be given in evidence at any stage of the proceeding-
  • the fact that other property stolen within the period of 12 months preceding the date of the offence charged was found or had been in his possession: and
  • the fact that within the 5 years preceding the date of the offence charged he was convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty

The Law here allows the giving of evidence to be given at any stage of the proceeding  of establishing the guilty knowledge of a person charged or being tried for the offence of receiving stolen property or being in possession of stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen. Take note that the only ground for which such evidence is made admissible is for the purpose of proving the guilty knowledge of the accused, and this therefore implies the facts of receiving the goods to which the charge relates must be proved. Thus, it must be proved that the accused received the goods the subject of the charge before introducing evidence of other instances when the accused had received stolen goods within the last twelve months or conviction for fraud or dishonesty in the past five years.

Before the evidence as above mentioned can be admissible, the accused person must be on trial not for stealing or other offence but for receiving or being in possession of stolen property. see the case of Odutade v Police [1952] 20 NLR 81, in this case, the appellant was charged with others with stealing and receiving stolen property, but by himself being with being a rogue and a vagabond. Evidence of convictions over ten years old was given against him. He was acquitted on the vagrancy charge but convicted of receiving. On appeal, it was argued that the previous convictions were put in for the vagrancy charge and not for receiving within Section 46(b) of the Act [which is 47(2) of 1990 EA]. It was held that Section 46 (1) (b) was inapplicable and that the appellant did not have a fair trial.

It is also worthy of note that there are conditions for proving SCIENTER and such conditions include:

• Giving of seven days’ notice in writing to the Defendant that proof of previous conviction is intended to be given and
• A proof by evidence that the property which is the subject of the matter of which the accused is being tried was found in his possession or has been in his possession.

Whenever any person is being proceeded against for receiving any property, knowing I to have been stolen or for having in his possession stolen property for  the purpose of proving  guilty  knowledge  there  may  be  given  in  evidence   at any stage of the proceedings:

• The fact that other property stolen within the period of twelve months proceedings the date of the offence charged was found or had been in his possession.
• the fact that within the five years preceding the  date  of  the  offence  charged, he was convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty

1. Section 82 (2) Evidence Act 2011: Evidence of character of the accused in criminal proceedings. The Act provides as follows:

2.) The fact that an accused person is of bad character is relevant:-

a.)  When the bad character of the accused person is a fact in issue.   b.) When the accused person has given evidence of his good character

3.) An accused person may be asked questions to show that he is of bad character in the circumstances mentioned in section 159 (d)

4.) Whenever evidence of bad character is relevant evidence of a previous conviction is also relevant.

1. Section 94 Evidence Act, 2011: Evidence of identity of name and handwriting may be admissible also to prove execution of a document. The Act provide as follows:
   • Evidence that a person exists having the same name, address, business or occupation as the maker of a document purports to have, is admissible to show that such document was written or signed by that person
   • Evidence that a document exists to which the document the making of which is in issue purports to be a reply, together with evidence of the making and delivery to a person of such earlier document, is admissible to show the identity of the maker of the disputed document with the person to whom the earlier document was delivered.
2. Section 180 Evidence Act 2011: Competency of Accused person to give evidence. The Act provides as follows:

Every person charged with an offence shall be a competent witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings, whether the person so charged is charged solely or jointly with any other person. Provided that-

• A person charged and called as a witness in pursuance of this section shall not be asked, and if asked, shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted of or been charged with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged or is of bad character
  • The proof that he has committed or been convicted of such other offence is admissible evidence to show that he is guilty of the offence wherewith he is then charged; or
  • He has personally or by  his  legal  practitioner  asked questions of the witnesses for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good character or has given evidence of his good character, if the nature or conduct of the defence in such as to involve imputation on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution or
  • He has given evidence against any other person charged with the same offered

1. Section 211 of the Evidence Act 1990:- Prosecution for Rape:

Under this provision, when a man is charged with an offence of rape, the evidence of the fact that the woman who alleges the offence is a woman known to be generally of  immoral character. Such  a  woman may be  asked if she had connections with other men or the Defendant on some other occasion. It should be noted that her answers as regards whether she had connections with other men  cannot be contradicted. It is  only  the question as to whether she ever had connection with the Defendant that may be contradicted if denied. See the case of R v Krang, {1973} 57  CR.  App. Rep. 466 . It was held in this case that on a charge of rape, a witness called by the Defence to prove that the prosecutrix was a prostitute was entitled to give his reasons for saying that  she  was  a  prostitute beyond  the mere fact of having himself had sexual intercourse with her.

Take note that the above position of Section  211  of  the  Evidence  Act  1990 is no longer the position under the Evidence Act  2011 because the  new Act did alter the material content of the Section 211 of the 1990 Evidence Act.

Section 234 Evidence Act 2011 provides as follows:

Where a person is prosecuted for rape or attempt to commit rape or for indecent assault, except with the leave of the court no evidence shall be adduced, and, except with the  like leave, no question in cross - examination shall be asked by or on behalf of the defendant, about any sexual experience of the complainant with any person other than the defendant .

A vivid look at the Section 234 of the Evidence Act 2011, shows that adducing evidence of the immoral life style of the Complainant or sexual experience with any other person or cross examination in that regard as allowed under Section 211  Evidence Act 1990 is not   allowed  under Section 234 of the Evidence Act 2011 except with the leave of court.

• Other Similar Facts Evidence which are Relevant and Admissible

Evidence of similar facts are generally irrelevant and inadmissible but there are exceptions, which may be subject to the discretion of the judge to reject it where its judicial effect outweigh its relevance similar facts evidence. Such Similar fact  is relevant to:-

1. Evidence which tends to rebut a defence of accident or mistake were the fact in issue is alleged crime or tort involving guilty knowledge or intention. In  R  v Geering  (1849),  G  was  charged  with  murder   of   her   husband   by administering arsenic poison.The prosecution was to call evidence showing that:

• G cover for him and gave him his food. Her two sons who lived  with  her  had died of arsenic poisoning
• Her third son had taken ill from the same arsenic substance

The defence substance objected but the court overruled. Admitting the evidence, the  court explained that it tended to show that the death of accused’s husband had not occurred by mere accident but by deliberate design.

Illustrations

Zakari advertises falsely that he carries on trade as a dairyman and famer and obtains eggs on credit from Aremu. Subsequently by the same devices, Zakari also defrauds Kuku; and Danjuma on different occasions. The three different incidents are evidence  of  similar facts, and are admission to prove intention.

2. Evidence which tend to prove the main fact in issue. Eg. When the  similar  facts  are intermixed with  the  fact  in  issue  as  to  form  one  transaction  –  when  the similar facts and the fact in issue form a series of acts done in pursuance of someone design, constituting a continuous course of action

Illustration: Usman is charged with stealing gas from PHCN in February 2011. There was evidence  that  he had  taken  the Gas from the Gas Main, by means  of a pipe, for use in  his own factory. The evidence that Usman has been doing so over a number of years is evidence of similar facts admissible on the ground that it tends to show one continuous transaction.

3. Evidence which tend to establish Identity

Facts which establish the identity of any person or thing in issue. Fact which fix the time  and place connecting fact in issue to relevant fact or a party with some transaction.

Evidence of similarity of characteristics, age, photographs, handwriting,  opportunity, finger prints possession of stolen goods, special knowledge or skill etc.

Illustration  :  Kunle  is  indicted  for  murder of  Mr.  Rich.   Evidence of Kunle’s pecuniary embarrassment is relevant to show that his motive was to obtain deceased’s property.

4. Evidence which tends to show that a conduct, which may be lawful  or  unlawful, depending on the intent with which it was done was, in fact,
5. Evidence which tends to show that the material found in possession of the accused was possessed for an unlawful rather than a lawful
6. Evidence which tends to show a design, or systematic conduct
7. Evidence which tends to prove knowledge
8. Evidence which tends to corroborate the evidence of a prosecution witness
   • The Exclusionary Aspect of Similar Facts

There are several acts that may ordinarily qualify to be similar facts but which the court  has no power to receive because  such facts are  statutorily excluded from been accepted or admissible. Such provisions include:-

1. Section 1 Evidence Act, 2011: Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts

Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non- existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as declared to be relevant and of no others. Provided that

1. The court may exclude evidence of facts which through relevant or deemed   to be  relevant  to  the  issue,  appears  to  it  to  be  too  remote  to  be  maternal in all the circumstances of the case: and
2. This section shall n o t enable any  person  to give  evidence  of  a fact,  which he is disentitled to prove by the provision of the law for the time being  in 

2. Section 82 Evidence Act 2011: Evidence of character of the accused in criminal proceedings

1.)  Except  as  provided  in  this  section,   the  fact   that   an   accused   person   is of bad character is irrelevant in criminal proceedings

2.) The fact that an accused person is of bad character is relevant:-

a.) When the bad character of the accused person is a fact in issue.

b.) When the accused person has given evidence of his good character

3.)    An accused person may be asked questions to show that he is of  bad  character in the circumstances mentioned in section 159 (d)

4.)    Whenever evidence of bad character is relevant evidence of a previous conviction is also relevant.

3. Section 180 Evidence Act, 2011: Competency of Accused person to give evidence. Every person charged with a defence shall be a competent witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings, whether the person so charged is  charged  solely or jointly with any other

• A person charged and called as a witness shall not be asked,  and if  asked,  shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted of or been charged with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged or is of bad character
  • The proof that he has committed or been convicted  of  such  other  offence is admissible evidence to show that he is guilty of the offence wherewith he is then charged; or
  • He has personally or by his legal practitioner asked questions of the witnesses for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good character or has given evidence of his good character, it the nature or conduct of the defence in such as to involve imputation on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution or
  • He has given evidence .against any other person charged with the same offence

4. Section 36 (1): Evidence of Scienter

Whenever any person is being proceeded against for receiving any property, knowing i t to have been stolen or for having in his possession stolen property for the purpose of proving  guilty  knowledge  there  may  be  given  in  evidence   at any stage of the proceedings:

1. The fact that other property stolen within  the  period  of  twelve months proceedings the date of the offence charged was found or had been in his
2. The fact that within the five  years  proceeding  the  date  of  the  offence charged, he was convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty

The last mentioned fact may not be proved unless:-

i). seven days’ notice in writing has been given  to the  offenders  that  proof  of such previous conviction is intended to be given, and

1. ii) evidence has been given that the property in  respect  of  which  the  offender  is being tried was found or had been in his possession

Activity : Write a brief note on what you understand by Similar Facts Evidence

CONCLUSION

Evidence of general resemblance or of general similar  facts  are  inadmissible.  They merely shows propensity, bias and prejudice, is irrelevant and conflicts with the maxim Res Inter alios acta [this means- a thing or event which occurs at a time different from   the time in issue is generally not admissible to prove what occurred  at  the  time  in issue]. However, there are exceptions to this general exclusionary, rule. Hence similar fact evidence is admissible, when it shows evidence system- when it shows not merely a general resemblance but also such a particular resemblance  as to fix the  other party as the actor in each case.

SUMMARY

Similar fact evidence is that which is admissible because it is closely connected to the fact in issue. The principle has been formulated by the Common Law Rule in Makin’s case.

TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT

Similar Facts relate to past events and are irrelevant to facts in issue. Discuss.

REFERENCE/FURTHER READINGS

1. C. Nweze: Contentious issues & Responses in Contemporary Evidence Law In Nigeria. [Institute for Development Studies: University of Enugu] 2003.
2. Eche Adah: The Nigerian Law of Evidence [Maltlhouse Press Limited: Lagos] 2000.
3. Justice P.A. Onamade: Documentary Evidence- Cases and Materials [Philade Co. Ltd: Lagos] 2002.
4. The Evidence Act 1990 and The Evidence Act,
5. The Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th