Documentary Evidence (136)
HELD:
"Section 102 of the new Act provides that:The following documents are public documents: (a) documents forming the official acts or records of the official acts -(i) Of the sovereign authority;(ii) Of official bodies and tribunals;(iii) Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere; and(b) Public records kept in Nigeria of private documents. As indicated earlier, counsel for the appellant contended that only certified true copies of the above categories of documents are admissible.
HELD:
"Section 55 of the Evidence Act 2011 deals with certificates of specified government officers.
HELD:
"Now, what really is the essence of the demand for a certified true copy of a public document? I think, and in agreement with Adekeye, JSC, in GODWILL & TRUST INVESTMENT LIMITED v. WITT & BUSH LIMITED (2011) 8 NWLR 500; (2011) LPELR - 1333 (SC), the essence of demanding for a certified true copy of a public document is the assurance of the authenticity of the document vis-a-vis the original.
HELD:
"The appellant's counsel is very adamant in his argument on the admissibility of exhibits 1, 2 and 3, that is, the medical Report and the two statements made by the appellant, to the police which, as correctly stated by the respondent's counsel, were original documents admitted without objection from the appellant or the learned counsel who appeared for him.
HELD:
"Before then, suffice that I mention that the Courts are not unanimous on whether; where original copy of a document forming part of public record is available, the secondary evidence of it, as opposed to the original and primary evidence of it, is the only legal evidence admissible in evidence and it is illegal to prove its contents by the production of the original copy.
HELD:
"By the combined effect of Sections 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, 2011, documents (Public or Private) may be produced in Court by tendering either the original of the document itself or the copy thereof known as secondary evidence: but a party relying on secondary evidence of a public document must produce the certified true copy and no other copy thereof is admissible.
HELD:
"With regard to the admissibility of Exhibits 1, 2 & 3 and the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that only certified true copies of public documents are admissible in evidence and therefore the original documents tendered in this case are inadmissible.
HELD:
"In ASINIOLA V. FATODU (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt 1136)184 at 198, the Court of Appeal (per Nweze JCA) held as follows: "It is axiomatic law that English Language is the lingua franca of the superior courts in Nigeria.
HELD:
"By virtue of the provisions of section 93 of the Evidence Act, documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. However section 91 (1) (b) of the Evidence Act provides that in any civil proceedings where direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible, any statement made by a person in a document and tending to establish that fact, shall on production of the original documents be admissible as evidence of that fact if the following conditions are satisfied.
HELD:
"At page 43, lines 30 to 33 of the record, the Court stated: Court: "The statement of the accused dated which is undated in blue biro is admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit 2. While the 2nd one dated 23/9/2011 in black biro is admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit 2A. The learned counsel for the Respondent based on the above statement of the Court to submit that the contention of the Appellant's counsel that Exhibit 2 was undated is misconceived as he argued that; a careful reading of the record will show that what was contained therein is a typographical error because the statement is meaningless. He asked the question; if the statement was undated then what was written in blue biro? Without much ado, I have looked at Exhibit 2 which by its content is an additional statement of the Appellant made at the State CID. Exhibit 2 is neither dated nor signed. I have seen thump prints on Exhibit 2, but the same has no nexus with the Appellant as the name of the person that has the thump print is not stated. I am therefore of the view that Exhibit 2 is a worthless document since it was neither dated nor signed. Exhibit 2 has no evidential value, any attempt by the trial Court to attach any weight to it is adjudged wrong in law. See: Awolaja v. Seatrade GBV (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 758) 520; Abeje & Anor. V. Apeke (2013) LPELR - 20675 (CA). I hereby expunge Exhibit 2 from the record." UMORU ABDULLAHI v. THE STATE(2016) LPELR-43753(CA) Per ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Pp. 14-15, Paras. B-C)
FACTS: