Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts: The Gateway to Evidence in Nigerian Courts

Picture a land dispute in the Ibadan High Court. The plaintiff says the defendant trespassed on his farmland. The defendant says the land belongs to him and he was simply exercising his right. The plaintiff’s counsel calls a witness who wants to testify that the defendant has a bad temper and once quarrelled with a neighbour. The defence objects. The judge sustains the objection. Why?

Because the defendant’s temper is not a fact in issue and is not relevant to any fact in issue in that case. It does not make the question of who owns the land any more or less probable. Evidence about it wastes the court’s time and clouds the real dispute.

This is what the concepts of facts in issue and relevant facts do. They act as the gateway through which evidence must pass before it can be placed before a Nigerian court. Understanding them is not optional for a law student. Every other topic in evidence law, hearsay, character evidence, confessions, opinion evidence, all of them only make sense once you understand this foundational framework.

What is a Fact? The Starting Point

Before you can understand what a fact in issue is, you need to understand what a fact is in the first place.

Section 258(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 defines a fact as anything, a state of things, or a relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses, or any mental condition of which a person is conscious.¹

This is a deliberately wide definition. It covers physical objects you can touch or see. It covers events that happened. It covers the state of a person’s mind at a particular time, which matters enormously in criminal law where intent is often a fact in issue. It covers relationships between things, like the causal connection between an act and an injury.

The definition covers two broad categories. External facts are states of things in the world that can be perceived by the senses: a man struck another man, a signature appeared on a document, a vehicle was parked outside a building. Internal facts are mental conditions: a person intended to defraud, a person knew that a statement was false, a person was in a state of fear.

Facts in Issue: The Heart of Every Case

A fact in issue is any fact which a party to a proceeding either affirms or denies, and which if proved or disproved would affect the outcome of the case.²

The key word here is disputed. For a fact to be in issue, it must be in genuine dispute between the parties. In the cases of Olufosoye v Olorunfemi³ and UBA v Jargaba,⁴ the courts affirmed that for a fact to be in issue, it must be something that is actually contested. A fact that both parties agree upon is not a fact in issue. It needs no proof.

How are facts in issue identified in practice? This depends on whether you are in a civil or a criminal proceeding.

In a civil suit, facts in issue are determined through the pleadings. The statement of claim sets out what the plaintiff asserts. The statement of defence responds by admitting some facts, denying others, and perhaps asserting new ones. The intersection of those claims and denials reveals what is genuinely disputed. Those are the facts in issue. A fact admitted in the pleadings is no longer in issue and requires no evidence.

In a criminal trial, facts in issue are determined by the charge sheet or information. The prosecution identifies the offence and the specific acts it alleges. The accused person’s plea of not guilty puts the prosecution’s allegations in issue. The elements of the offence as defined by law then become the facts that must be proved.

Take a charge of armed robbery under section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. The facts in issue include: did the accused use violence or threat of violence? Was there a stealing? Was a firearm or offensive weapon used? Did the alleged incident happen at all? Each of these is a fact in issue because proof or disproof of any one of them affects whether the accused is convicted.

Facts Relevant to Facts in Issue: The Outer Circle

Beyond the facts in issue lies a second circle of facts: facts relevant to facts in issue. These are facts that, while not being the ultimate questions the court must decide, help to establish or undermine those ultimate questions.

The Evidence Act 2011 sets out specific categories of facts that are relevant to facts in issue. These categories are important because relevance under the Act is not simply a matter of logical connection. A fact is only relevant if it falls within one of the categories the Act recognises. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood points in Nigerian evidence law.

Facts that are the cause or effect of a fact in issue or relevant fact: Section 5

Section 5 makes facts relevant if they are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Facts that constitute the state of things under which such a fact happened or which afforded an opportunity for its occurrence are also relevant.

This section is broader than it may appear. It includes not just the immediate cause of an event but the background conditions that made it possible. If a person is charged with murder and the allegation is that he struck the deceased on the head, the condition of the deceased’s health before the blow, the type of weapon used, the location where the incident happened, and the medical cause of death are all relevant under section 5 because they are either the cause or the effect of the act charged.

Facts constituting motive, preparation or opportunity: Section 6

Section 6 makes relevant any fact which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. It also makes relevant previous or subsequent conduct of any party affected by such facts.

This section creates an important exception to the general principle that evidence of a person’s character, ambitions, or emotional life is not relevant. Ordinarily, the fact that a man is ambitious, jealous, or envious is not relevant to any legal proceeding. But under section 6, if that jealousy or ambition constitutes the motive for the act charged, it becomes relevant. A prosecution for murder can therefore lead evidence that the accused was having an affair with the deceased’s wife, not to prove bad character, but to prove motive, which is a fact relevant to the fact in issue.⁵

The conduct made relevant under section 6 includes conduct before and after the fact in issue. Conduct before the fact might include purchasing a weapon, visiting a location in advance, or making threats. Conduct after the fact might include flight from the scene, disposing of evidence, or making inconsistent statements.

Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue: Section 7

Section 7 makes relevant facts that are necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or a relevant fact, facts that support or rebut an inference suggested by such a fact, facts that establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, and facts fixing the time or place at which a fact in issue occurred.

This section is the statutory basis for what lawyers sometimes call foundational evidence. Before you can tender a document in court, you may need to establish who prepared it, when it was prepared, and where it came from. That preliminary evidence is relevant under section 7 because it introduces and explains the main fact.

The section also covers identity evidence. If the question is whether the person who committed the act is the same person who is standing in the dock, any fact that establishes or undermines that identity is relevant under section 7.

Statements by conspirators: Section 8

Section 8 makes relevant, in a proceeding against a conspirator, any statement made by one conspirator in furtherance of the common intention of the conspiracy. This is admissible not only against the person who made the statement but against all members of the conspiracy.

This section operates as an important exception in criminal law. Ordinarily, a statement made by one person is hearsay and therefore inadmissible against another. But where two or more people have agreed to pursue a common criminal purpose, and a statement is made in furtherance of that purpose, the law treats all conspirators as agents of each other. The statement becomes admissible against all of them.

Facts affecting the existence of a right or custom: Section 9

Section 9 makes relevant any fact that shows the existence of any right or custom if the existence of such right or custom is in issue or is relevant to a fact in issue.

This section is particularly useful in land disputes, where the question may involve whether a particular custom of inheritance or land tenure exists and how it has been applied. Evidence of how a community has historically dealt with land ownership and succession may be relevant under section 9 if the existence or content of that custom is in dispute.

Facts necessary to prove damages: Section 10

Section 10 makes relevant facts necessary to explain or ascertain the nature or extent of any right, obligation, or liability claimed or denied in any proceeding, or to ascertain the money value of any such right, obligation, or liability.

In a personal injury claim, for example, the plaintiff’s medical expenses, loss of earnings, and cost of future care are all relevant under section 10 because they go to the damages recoverable.

Facts showing state of mind or bodily feeling: Sections 11 and 16

Section 11 makes relevant the existence of any state of mind, including intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will, or good-will towards any particular person, when such state of mind is in issue or relevant. Section 16(b) extends this to states of body or bodily feeling.

The importance of section 11 in criminal law cannot be overstated. Many offences require proof of a specific mental state. Obtaining by false pretences requires knowledge that a representation is false. Stealing requires an intention to permanently deprive. Fraud requires dishonesty. Section 11 makes relevant any fact that establishes or undermines the existence of those mental states.

Facts showing whether an act was accidental or intentional: Section 12

Section 12 makes relevant facts showing that an act was part of a series of similar acts when the question is whether that act was accidental or intentional. This section overlaps with the similar facts evidence doctrine and is examined in detail in the article on similar facts evidence.

Evidence of business custom: Section 13

Section 13 makes relevant, in any proceeding relating to a trade, transaction, or act, evidence that such trade, transaction, or act is in accordance with or contrary to general practice.

This section is useful in commercial disputes. If the question is whether a party breached a contract by delivering goods in a particular manner, evidence that the manner of delivery is or is not standard in the relevant trade may be admissible under section 13.

The Meaning of Relevancy: A Precise Definition

Having surveyed the categories of relevant facts, we can now give relevancy its precise meaning.

A fact is relevant under the Evidence Act 2011 when it falls within one of the categories in sections 5 to 19 of the Act. The definition given in the lecturer materials and the cases is that a fact is relevant when its existence renders another fact more probable.⁶ But this logical description must always be read alongside the statutory categories. Logic alone does not make a fact relevant. It must be logical and fall within a category recognised by the Act.

This distinction is important because it explains why some logically connected facts are still excluded. The fact that an accused person committed a similar crime ten years ago may logically make it more probable that he committed the current one. But evidence of that earlier crime is generally excluded by section 82 on character evidence. Its logical relevance does not override the statutory exclusion.

The courts have consistently affirmed this statutory approach to relevance. In Abubakar v Chuks,⁷ the court held that admissibility is a rule of evidence based on relevancy, and relevancy is determined by the provisions of the Act.

Relevancy is a Question of Fact, Admissibility is a Question of Law

This distinction is one of the most examined points in Nigerian evidence law and one of the most frequently confused.

Relevancy is a question of fact. When a judge asks whether a particular piece of evidence is relevant, the question being asked is: does this fact, if proved, make any of the facts in issue more or less probable? That is a factual assessment. Logic plays a role in it, but it is ultimately a judgment about how the world works.

Admissibility is a question of law. When a judge asks whether a particular piece of evidence is admissible, the question being asked is: does the law permit this evidence to be received by the court? That is determined entirely by the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Constitution. A judge has no discretion to admit evidence that is excluded by law, regardless of how relevant it may be.

The practical consequence of this distinction is significant. A piece of evidence may be relevant but inadmissible. Hearsay is the classic example. A statement made out of court, if true, may be highly relevant to proving a fact in issue. But the general rule of the Evidence Act 2011 excludes it because the original maker is not available for cross-examination. Relevance does not cure inadmissibility.

Conversely, evidence may be admissible but carry little weight. A court may admit a document in evidence but ultimately give it little or no probative value because of doubts about its authenticity or the reliability of its maker.

Weight: The Third Concept

Weight is distinct from both relevance and admissibility. Weight is the probative value that a court attaches to evidence that has been admitted. It measures how much the evidence actually advances the case of the party who tendered it.

Section 34(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 directs the court to assess weight by taking into account all the circumstances surrounding how evidence was obtained. The relevant factors include whether the witness had an incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts, whether a witness is interested in the outcome of the proceeding through blood relations or personal ties, and whether the evidence is consistent with other evidence in the case.⁸

Facts affecting the credibility of a witness are relevant to weight. Under section 223 of the Evidence Act 2011, evidence that a witness is unworthy of belief, proof of a corrupt inducement given to a witness, and proof of former statements inconsistent with the witness’s evidence in court all affect the weight the court gives to that witness’s testimony.

A witness declared hostile under section 230 of the Act has their evidence rendered practically weightless. The hostile witness rule allows the party who called the witness to cross-examine them and undermines the value of their evidence.

The relationship between the three concepts can be summarised simply. Relevance asks: is this fact connected to what we are trying to prove? Admissibility asks: does the law allow this fact to come before the court? Weight asks: assuming it is both relevant and admitted, how much should the court believe it and rely on it?

Why Irrelevant Evidence is Excluded: The Policy Reasons

Understanding why the law excludes irrelevant evidence helps students explain the framework rather than just describing it.

First, it saves time and costs. A trial that admits every fact that might be tenuously connected to any issue would never end. Limiting evidence to what is genuinely relevant keeps proceedings focused and manageable.

Second, it prevents confusion. Introducing tangential facts risks clouding the court’s judgment on the real issues. A jury or judge can only process so much information. Irrelevant material dilutes the quality of fact-finding.

Third, it protects parties from prejudice. Evidence that is irrelevant to the facts in issue but harmful to a party’s reputation or character, such as unrelated misconduct, can prejudice a court against that party without helping to resolve the actual dispute.

Fourth, it makes self-defence possible. A party defending a case should know what they need to answer. If any tangentially connected fact can be admitted, the party defending has no way of knowing in advance what they must prepare to rebut.⁹

The Constitutional Dimension

There is a point about facts in issue that connects to the Constitution which most students overlook entirely.

Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees fair hearing. A core element of fair hearing is that a party must know what case they have to meet. This means the facts in issue must be clearly identified before trial through the charge sheet in criminal proceedings or the pleadings in civil proceedings. Surprise evidence on matters that have not been pleaded or charged is not just procedurally irregular. It may violate the constitutional right to fair hearing.

In criminal proceedings, the charge or information must state clearly the particulars of the offence. Those particulars define the facts in issue. If the prosecution adduces evidence at trial on matters that go beyond the particulars of the charge, the accused’s counsel should object on the basis that the accused has not had the opportunity to prepare a defence to those facts. This is a constitutional argument, not merely an evidentiary one.

The connection between this and the foundations of criminal liability matters because the elements of any offence defined by the Criminal Code or Penal Code are precisely what become the facts in issue when that offence is charged.

A Quick Reference Table

Concept	Definition	How Determined	Key Sections
Fact	Anything capable of being perceived by the senses or any mental condition	Statutory definition	s 258(1) EA 2011
Fact in Issue	A fact affirmed by one party and denied by the other whose proof affects the outcome	Through pleadings (civil) or charge sheet (criminal)	s 258(1) EA 2011
Relevant Fact	A fact that falls within a category in the Act that connects it to a fact in issue	Determined by the court as a question of fact	ss 5 to 19 EA 2011
Relevancy	The quality of a fact that makes it fall within a recognised category	Question of fact	ss 3, 5 to 19 EA 2011
Admissibility	Whether the law permits evidence to be received	Question of law	ss 1 to 3 EA 2011
Weight	The probative value a court attaches to admitted evidence	Assessed by the court in all circumstances	s 34(1), 223 EA 2011

Key Cases

Olufosoye v Olorunfemi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 275 The court held that for a fact to be in issue, it must be genuinely disputed between the parties. Facts agreed upon by both sides require no proof and are not facts in issue.

UBA v Jargaba (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247 The court reaffirmed the principle that facts in issue are those which are denied and whose resolution determines the outcome of the case.

Abubakar v Chuks (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 386 The court held that admissibility is a rule of evidence based on relevancy, and relevancy is a question of fact while admissibility is a question of law. Evidence which is legally receivable is admissible whether or not it is logically probable.

Nwabuoku v Onward Enterprise Ltd (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 962) 511 The court distinguished between the admissibility of evidence and its weight, holding that it is one thing for evidence to be admitted and another thing for it to carry probative value.

Problem Question Framework

When an examination question asks whether particular evidence is admissible, or when a problem scenario involves a dispute about what facts can be placed before the court, apply this framework.

First, identify the facts in issue. Look at the charge or the pleadings. What is the plaintiff or prosecution asserting? What is the defendant denying? The intersection is your facts in issue.

Second, ask whether the evidence in question relates to a fact in issue or to a fact relevant to a fact in issue. If it does not relate to either, it is irrelevant and should be excluded.

Third, if it is relevant, check which category in sections 5 to 19 of the Evidence Act 2011 brings it within the realm of relevant facts. Simply saying something is logically connected is not enough. You must identify the specific provision.

Fourth, ask whether it is admissible. Even if the fact is relevant, check whether any rule of exclusion applies. Is it hearsay? Is it protected by privilege? Is it character evidence? Relevant evidence can still be inadmissible.

Fifth, if admitted, consider its weight. Is the source reliable? Is the witness interested in the outcome? Are there inconsistencies with other evidence? Weight is assessed separately from admissibility.

Common Student Mistakes

The most common mistake is treating relevance and admissibility as the same thing. They are not. A fact can be relevant but inadmissible. A fact can be admissible but carry no weight. These are three separate and sequential questions.

The second mistake is thinking that logical connection alone establishes relevance under the Evidence Act. The Act requires that a fact fall within one of its recognised categories. If a student says “this is relevant because it makes the conclusion more likely,” that is incomplete. The student must also identify which section of the Act makes it relevant.

The third mistake is confusing facts in issue with all the facts discussed at trial. A trial may involve many facts being mentioned. Only the facts that are actually disputed and whose resolution determines the outcome are facts in issue.

The fourth mistake is applying the concept of relevance without considering the charge or the pleadings first. Facts in issue are defined by what is disputed, and what is disputed is defined by the charge or the pleadings. Students who try to identify facts in issue without starting there are guessing.

The fifth mistake is treating weight as a question the court can ignore. Courts are required by section 34(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 to assess weight. A student who argues that because evidence is admissible it must be believed is confusing admissibility with conclusive proof.

---

Footnotes

¹ Evidence Act 2011, s 258(1).

² S A Fagbemi, Law of Evidence I: Lecture Notes (University of Ibadan, Department of Public Law 2021) 18.

³ Olufosoye v Olorunfemi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 275.

⁴ UBA v Jargaba (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247.

⁵ Evidence Act 2011, s 6; M Adigun, Relevancy, Admissibility and Weight (University of Ibadan Faculty of Law Lecture Slides 2021) slide 4.

⁶ Adigun (n 5) slide 2.

⁷ Abubakar v Chuks (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 386.

⁸ Evidence Act 2011, s 34(1); Adigun (n 5) slide 6.

⁹ Adigun (n 5) slide 5.