Section 80 of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323) governing the use of evidence given in former proceedings, allowed evidence in a previous suit to be tendered to support or attack the credibility of a witness. Two situations could arise from that principle: (i) where the witness was unable to give a satisfactory account of the inconsistent testimonies, the effect of the contradiction was to destroy his credibility and render the evidence he gave at the subsequent trial negligible; but the earlier testimony used to contradict him was neither admissible evidence of the truth of the fact stated therein nor evidence upon which the court should act to make a finding; and (ii) where he gave an explanation which the trial [pg 284] judge accepted as reasonable for his former evidence, it would be for the trial judge to form his opinion of the credibility and veracity of the witness, and either accept or reject the evidence given before him. In both situations, the previous statement or testimony used to contradict the witness was not admissible evidence of the truth of the fact stated therein. It was therefore clear that in the instant case, the trial judge had erred in ignoring the evidence led before her by the boundary owners and the plan, exhibit KAI, in support of the identity of the plaintiff’s land and rather relying on the evidence before the committee as truth of the matter stated therein and the yardstick to determine the authenticity of the evidence led before her. Accordingly, the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in not rejecting that finding which was based on the report of the committee. Wright v Beckett (1834) 174 ER 143; R v Birch (1924) 93 LJKB 385 and R v Golder (1960) 45 Cr App R 5 cited.