People often say: “I have proof, so I will win.” In reality, not everything that looks like proof can be used in Court, and even when it can be used, it may not be strong enough to convince the Court.

A helpful way to understand evidence is to remember three steps:

1) Is it relevant?

Evidence is relevant when it has a logical connection to what the Court must decide—meaning it makes a fact more likely or less likely.

Also, relevance is important because relevance is a condition before admissibility—but relevance alone is not enough.

Example (simple):
If the issue is whether a person signed an agreement, then a message saying “Yes, I accept the price and the terms” may be relevant. But a message about their unrelated personal life is usually not.

2) Even if it’s relevant, is it admissible?

The guiding principle is often stated like this: “All relevant evidence is admissible… subject to the exceptions.”

So the law has filters (exclusion rules). The document explains three broad reasons why evidence may be excluded:

• It may be unduly prejudicial (it unfairly damages someone rather than proving the real issue);
• It may be inherently unreliable (for example, hearsay);
• It may be against the public interest (for example, certain improperly obtained confessions or protected professional privilege).

A very common example: Hearsay

An out-of-court statement can be highly relevant but still inadmissible under the hearsay rule.

The reason is simple: if a witness comes to Court and says, “A third person told me XYZ,” that witness has no personal knowledge, and the other side may have no opportunity to cross-examine the person who actually made the statement.

Example (simple):
“My neighbour told me he saw it” is usually weak because the neighbour should come to Court (if possible) and testify directly.

3) If the Court admits it, what is its weight?

Weight means how convincing the evidence is once it is admitted.

Law of Evidence

Courts typically look at things like:

• Is it supported or contradicted by other evidence?
• Does the witness seem credible and consistent?

  
  

• Do the circumstances make sense?

So, two people might both produce “evidence,” but one version may carry far more weight because it is consistent, supported, and credible.

A quick note on documents: the Best Evidence idea

If you want to rely on what a document says, the law generally expects the best available version—typically the original (primary evidence). Copies (secondary evidence) may be accepted only in limited situations.
Practical point: Keep originals safe (agreements, receipts, official letters), and keep clear records of how you obtained documents.

Practical tips

• Keep originals of important documents; don’t rely only on screenshots.
• If you have messages, keep the full conversation, not only selected lines.
• Avoid building your case mainly on “someone told me…”. If possible, get the actual witness.

Remember: relevant does not always mean admissible, and admissible does not always mean strong.

Where these rules come from (Mauritius)

This document notes that Mauritian evidence rules come largely from the Courts Act 1945 (sections 161–196) and other laws, and that section 162 links our approach to English evidence law (with important limits explained in Mauritian case law).