Clearly, taking an oath before testifying is a mandatory requirement that cannot be glossed over and its omission vitiates the proceedings since it renders the evidence invalid.

i) Parties are bound by their pleadings and can only succeed according to what he has averred in his plaint and proved in evidence; hence he is not allowed to set up a new case. the appellant was required to parade evidence ...

HELD (i) An appellate court, like this one, will only interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if it is satisfied that "they are on the face of it unreasonable or perverse" leading to a miscarriage of justice, or ...

(i) The court found that the respondent's petition for divorce before the trial court was incompetent for failure to comply with the requirement of section 101 and 106 (2) of the Marriage Act. It is the requirement of the ...

(i) An appellate court, like this one, will only interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if it is satisfied that "they are on the face of it unreasonable or perverse" leading to a miscarriage of justice, or there ...

It is mandatory for every witness who is competent to take oath or affirmation before the reception of his or her evidence in the trial court including the CMA. If such evidence is received without oath or affirmation, it ...

i) he prescribed time on a suit for recovery of land is twelve (12) years from the date when the cause of action accrued. ii) It is on record that the appellants' suit was filed on 28th April, 2017 after lapse of twelve ...

(i) An appellate court, like this one, will only interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if it is satisfied that "they are on the face of it unreasonable or perverse" leading to a miscarriage of justice, or there ...