STATEMENT ON OATH WITH RESPECT TO THE OATHS

ACT AND THE RULES OF VARIOUS HIGH COURT

INTRODUCTION
An oath is a declaration made according to law before a
competent tribunal or judicial officers assigned to
administer oaths.
It is a sworn declaration made in a document which
recites facts pertinent to a legal proceeding which is
punishable under the criminal code act.
The Rule of Court have made it mandatory for certain
document to be frontloaded together with the originating
processes at the point of filing. witness statement on oath
is one of such document expected to be frontloaded.
Order 3 Rule 2 of the High Court of Rivers State (civil
proc3dure) Rules, 2010 provides as follows:
Or.3 (2) All civil proceedings commenced by the writ of
summon shall be accompanied by:
(a) Statement of Claim;
(b) List of witness to be called at the trial;
(c) written statement on oath of the witness….

In other words, where a suit is commenced via a

1|Page
 trial shall be filed alongside the Writ of summons.
where a claimant fails to comply with the provision
of the Rule relating to the frontloading of written
statement on oath of al witnesses, the implication
is that the originating process shall not be accepted
for filing by the registry.
MEANING OF STATEMENT ON OATH
in the case of GTB PLC V. Abiodun, the court of appeal
per Elechi, JCA explained a written statement on oath as
follows:
’’ A written statement on oath is the evidence in which a
party relies in court to establish his case or his answers
to his opponent’s case…. it is equally unlike pleadings
which are written statement (and not evidence)
generally of facts relied upon by party in proof of his
case.’’
In the same vein, the supreme court in the case of GE Int’l
Operations Ltd V. Q- Oil & Gas Services, defined the
witness statement as an out of court statement in writing
made on oath.

2|Page
DIFFERNCE BETWEEN STATEMENT ON OATH AND AN
AFFIDAVT EVIDENCE
A written statement on oath is different from an affidavit
in many respect.
A written statement on oath is like pleading and is said to
be worthless except same is adopted by the deponent. in
the case of FUNTUA V. TIJJANI; the court held that a
witness statement of oath does not automatically
translate into evidence merely because it has been filed in
the registry of the tribunal. It is a mere deposition and
until it is adopted by the deponent and accepted by the
court, it cannot be evidence before the court which can
be evaluated or considered. Thus, the witness must be
physically present in court in case there is need for the
other party to cross examine the witness on deposition
on the other hand, in the case of an affidavit, it is only
when material evidence exists that the court can call for
the deponent to the cross examine on such point
constituting the material conflict. In other words, the
intention of the deponent in an affidavit is not to be cross
examined on the fact to the deposed to in the affidavit
whereas a deponent in a written statement on oath gives
evidence in which he stands to be cross examined.
Though statement on oath and affidavit evidence are
both sworn declaration however this two declaration are
different.

3|Page
simply put, a statement on oath has no form and it is
useless until same is adopted by the witness after being
sworn on oath before the court and the said statement of
oath must be subjected to cross examination.
An affidavit on the other hand does not have to be
adopted in chief. it is a statement of fact attached motion
that can speak for itself and can be admitted by the court
except if controverted.
In distinguishing an affidavit from a written statement on
oath, the court of Appeal in the case of GTB PLC V.
Abiodun held that;
An affidavit is that upon which motions are largely
decided on while written statement of oath is that upon
which facts in pleadings are predicated. A written
statement on oath is the evidence which a party relies in
court to establish is case or his answer to opponent’s
case.
In OKPA V. IREK & anor (2012)
LPELR-CA/C/NAEA/289/2011, the court laid a strong brick
we can safely stand on ‘’that a witness statement on oath
is different from an affividavit evidence. An affidavit is a
statement of fact which the maker or deponent swears
to be true on the best of his knowledge. it is a court
process in written disposing the fact within the
knowledge of the deponent. it is the documentary

4|Page
evidence which the court can admit in the absence of an
unchallenged evidence.
AKPOKENIOVO V. AGAS (2004) 10 NWLR PT 881 PG 394;
on the contrary a witness statement is not evidence. it
only becomes evidence after the witness is sworn in
court and adopt his witness statement. At this stage at
best it become evidence in chief. it is thereafter
subjected to cross examination after which it becomes
evidence to be used by the court. if the opponent fails to
cross examine the witness, it is taken as the true
situation of fact contained therein.’’
In the case of SAMUEL LAMBERT &ANOR V. CHIEF A.S.B.C
OKUJAGU (2015) ALL FWLR PT 808 PG 665-666 paras E-A
thus: ‘’ it 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 is well specified by law. Section 117 and
118 evidence Act 2011. there is no law that all sworn
oath must comply with the provision of the evidence Act
as relate 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’’
WHO CAN ADMINSTER OATH;
According to the provision of section 13 of oath act 2004;
any person authorized by the Act, like the commissioner

5|Page
of oath or notary public, and take and receive a voluntary
declaration from someone in the form outlined in the first
schedule of the Act; essentially it allows for the
administration of a sworn statement by a person willingly
making a declaration before a designated authority.
section 15 High court of Lagos state (civil procedure)
Rule 2019 provides that ‘’Any officer of the court or other
person directed to take the examination of any witness or
person or any person nominated or appointed to take the
examination of any witness or person pursuant to the
provisions of any convention made with any foreign may
oath.
EFFECT OF A WRITTEN STATEMENT ON OATH NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OATH ACT
unlike an affidavit where a written statement on oath is
not in compliance with the oath Act the court have held
that such a breach cannot be referred to as technicality
that is to say where the words of swearing are missing in a
written statement on oath such written statement on
oath will be declared void.
For a written statement to have effect before any court of
law such written fact must be sworn to on oath before the
judicial officer empower to administer oaths. what gives
effect to your statement on oath is that same must be in a
compliance with the oath Act that is it must be filed
following the due process of law which requires that a

6|Page
person must make the statement on oath before a
commisoner for oath or notary public or officers assigned
to discharge the duty in accordance with the 1 st schecudle
of section 13 of oaths Act which says:
‘’it shall be lawful for any commissioner for Oaths,
Notary public or any other person authorized by the Act
to take and receive the declaration of any person
voluntarily making the same before him in the form set
out in the 1t schedule which is as follows, I (name
supplied) do solemly and sincerely declares, that I make
this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be
true’’
it is worthwhile to note, that the Act is a general statute
that deals with Oaths and the fundamental requirement is
that are to be relied on as a written evidence before the
commissioner for oaths.it is an adherence to this
condition precedent under the first schedule of section 13
of the Oaths Act that gives relevance to this law.
it is trite that defects regarding statement on oath is not
mere irregularity as to form but as substance if it is not in
compliance with the provision of the 1 st schedule of Oaths
Act. when a statement on Oath is characterized by the
absence of the oath clause or same is not duly sworn to
before a commissioner for oath, such statement on oath
is defective ab initio. A failure not to take oath at all or
failing to take it before the officers assigned to administer

7|Page
oath is not a mere irregularity which can be remedied but
a fundamental defect and it is not redeemable. it has
become a fundamentally defective process that cannot be
regularized or cured in law.
the position of the law was further established thus:
‘’Every oath to be legitmate must comply with the

provisions of the Oats Act, it is not an oath or affidavit

properly so called.’’ Per ELECHI, J.C.A Para 65. chikwelu

chris obeumneke V. okeke Sylvester &Anor (2010) ALL

FWLR (part 605) 1946 @1947’’

it is apposite to note that the 1 st schedule of section 13 of

the Oaths Act is mandatory and failure to comply is not a

mere irregularity that can be waived according to the

decision of the Appellant court in GTB V. ABIODUN (2017)

LPELR-42551(CA) on issue the issues of non-compliance,

the court went on to say:

8|Page
‘’ as stated earlier in the course of this judgement, any

written statement which does not bear the 1st schedule

to section 13 of the oath Act cannot be said to be a

written statement on oath that is missing in the written

statement of the respondent’s sole witness in the

present appeal. Non-compliance with the provision of

the oaths Act is a breach of the oath Act. the

consequence is that the entire statement of the

respondent’s sole witness is left bare. the rules of court

are not made for fun , they are made to be obeyed.’’

9|Page