Breach of promise for marriage: Section 197 Evidence Act It should be noted that under the Evidence Act of 2004 Sexual offences were among instances where corroboration is required by law, however, Sexual Offences were omitted from the 2011 Evidence Act Where corroboration may be required in practice Although corroboration may not be a requirement of the law, the court may in exceptional cases, demand some corroborative evidence as a matter of practice. Such instances include: Evidence of an accomplice Sworn evidence of a young child Matrimonial causes Claimants’ evidence relating to a deceased person Forms of corroboration Corroboration may take any of the following forms: Confession or admission by an accused Evidence of a witness Scientific evidence Destruction of material evidence or exhibit The position of the complainant coupled with the nature of complaint as in sexual offences. Independent evidence or an earlier similar offence by the accused on the same person. Corroborative evidence may be oral, written or documentary, real, behaviour or conduct or other. It may be direct or as in most cases circumstantial. It may also take the form of a confession, or a lie about a matter or an informal admission. It does not amount to corroboration that the party or witness gave false names or failed, refused, or neglected to give evidence. Unreliable evidence requires no corroboration. In practice, the judge is required to: Examine the whole of the evidence, to see whether there is any corroboration from the witness of the prosecution State what he finds to be corroboration Expressly caution him and exercise extreme care in determining whether or not to act on the suspect’s evidence where there is no