Relevance refers to evidence given in such a way that the finding of the existence of facts makes it highly probable that another fact in issue exists or does not exist. Relevance is not entirely a legal concept but the courts have insisted upon it to the extent that it is now established that only facts which are relevant and in issue may be admitted in court.
Section 5 of the Evidence Act states ‘No evidence shall be given in any suit or proceeding except evidence of the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue and of any other fact declared by any provision of the Act to be relevant.[1]
Generally all relevant facts are admissible but are subject to exceptions, under those exceptions a fact may be rejected notwithstanding the fact that it is relevant e.g. facts relating to Hearsay evidence, Opinion evidence and Character evidence unless they are saved by other exceptions.
In determining whether any fact is relevant the court will consider the nature of the transaction or the nature of the fact that is being sought to be proved. In seeking to assist the court to make that determination the evidence Act under section 6-16 has set out the categories of facts, which the court will accept as being relevant and therefore admissible. These facts include;
6. Facts forming part of the same transaction[2]
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. This is well illustrated after the appellant and his confederates fleeing the scene of crime they confronted one Rashid the motorist pulled him out of the car and tried to drive off before they were ordered to stop which they defied and later shot at by one Kennedy who was pursuing them. On the other hand the evidence of one Rashid cannot be admissible because he did not observe the appellant before arrest hence unable to identify him positively even after arrest was done.
7. Facts causing or caused by other facts[3]
Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction are relevant.
Principle and Scope
This section admits a very large class of facts connected with facts in issue or relevant facts, though not forming part of the transaction. Facts forming part of the same transaction are admissible under section 6. Evidence relating to collateral facts is admissible when such facts will, if established, establish reasonable presumption as to the matter in dispute and when such evidence is reasonably conclusive. The section provides for the admission of several classes of facts that are connected with the transaction under inquiry in particular modes, such
- As being the occasion or cause of a fact;
- As being its effect;
- As giving opportunity for its occurrence; and
- As constituting the state of things under which it happened.
Illustrations; The question is whether Appellant was with the same two other men who killed Ouma, the facts that shortly before the explosion the appellant left behind when caroline asked the three gentlemen to go in quoted “two were enough” and when Caroline stood up after the explosion was pushed back, was prevented from leaving her office and her way blocked by the appellant are relevant.
8. Facts relating to motive, preparation and conduct[4]
(1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent of a party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding or in reference to any fact in issue thereinor relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influencedby any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Its evidential to state that the appellant was with the same two other men who killed Ouma, the facts that shortly before the explosion the appellant left behind quoted “two were enough” through his conduct when Caroline stood up after the explosion was pushed back, prevented from leaving her office and her way blocked it amounts in support of clause (3) and (4) below. This shows the appellant had conspired and had the intention of killing Ouma with the other two men who entered Kisegi Agencies offices.
(3) When evidence of the conduct of a person is relevant any statement made to him, or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
(4) The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements.
9. Explanatory or introductory facts, etc.[5]
Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by such a fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
Illustration
Caroline testified that she was able to observe and talk to the three men and the man who was left behind after letting in the other two in Oumas office was the appellant and that immediately she found Ouma lying on the ground she raised an alarm upon which people pursued the appellant and his confederates where by one was fatally shot by one police constable Kennedy during the chase are relevant and admissible.
10. Statements and actions referring to common intention[6]
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said,done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. It’s rightly to say that the appellant conspired with his accomplice to kill one Ouma through the evidence given by one Caroline see clause (9) above and Kennedy the police constable that after the chase never lost the sight of the two whom one was short on the buttock and identified as the injured resulting to be the appellant. In addition their actions of not obeying the orders to stop and firing back raises a question of why were they resisting arrest? Its therefore concludes that they were trying to escape from the scene of crime after killing one Mr. Ouma the Director, KisegiAgecies.
11. Facts inconsistent with or affecting probability of, other facts[7]
Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—
(a) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; or
(b) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
The evidence of one Rashid the motorist who was pulled out of the Toyota corolla registration no KAG 224X stated that neither did he identify the appellant before he was arrested nor identify any of his attackers but only saw the appellant after the arrest on its own cannot be relevant but in conjunction with Kennedy’s evidence of that he ordered them to stop but defied in addition of never lost sight of the two, identifying the man he short was indeed the appellant.
12. Facts affecting quantum of damages[8]
In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant.
13. Facts affecting existence of right or custom[9]
Where the existence of any right or custom is in question, the following facts are relevant—
(a) any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence; or
(b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
Facts showing state of mind or feeling[10]
(1) Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant. During the identification parade Caroline and Gladys as identifying witness both picked on the appellant as the person they had seen at their office in the company of two others who fatally shot their boss and Caroline affirmed that she could remember the appellant extremely well. As for the intention it comes out where the Appellant excused himself and left the other two to enter Ouma’s office where by after the shot out He again blocked caroline’s way and pushed her back. This evidence pins down the appellant as an accomplice who aided the offence to be committed as stated in clause (2) and (3) below.
(2) A fact relevant within the meaning of subsection (1) of this section as showing the existence of a state of mind must show that the state of mind exists,not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
(3) Where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of subsection (1) of this section, the previous conviction of such person is also relevant.
