Documentary Evidence (136)
"...certify, put simply, means to authenticate or vouch for a thing in writing. It may also be said to mean 'to attest as being true or as represented'. As Exhibit 'A1' did not contain the seal of the customary court, it failed to pass the test of due certification as dictated by the law and the heavy premium placed on it by the appellants/applicants appears to be to no avail. By virtue of section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1990 public documents must be duly certified before they can be admissible in evidence. This is a pronouncement of the court of Appear per Tobi, J.C.A. (as he then was) in Aina v. Jinadu (1992) 4 NWLR (pt 233) 91 at 107. It was well made and I endorse same without any shred of hesitation." S. A. ADEYEFA & ORS v. BELLO BAMGBOYE(2014) LPELR-22884(SC) Per FABIYI, J.S.C (P. 18, paras. A-C)
"The law is clear on this issue, that every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person, on demand, a copy of it on payment of the prescribed legal fees, with a certification at the foot of the document, that it is a true copy of its original. The certification expected to be endorsed on the said copy shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title and shall be sealed. The copy of such document so certified are referred to as certified copies admissible in court. See; Section 104 of the Evidence Act. Justus Nwabuoku & Ors v. Francis Onqwordi & Ors. (2006) 8-9 SCM 247; (2006) 5 SC (Pt.111) 03; (2006) LPELR 2082." S. A. ADEYEFA & ORS v. BELLO BAMGBOYE(2014) LPELR-22884(SC) Per ARIWOOLA, J.S.C (Pp. 29-30, paras. E-A)
"Documentary evidence in this matter, is crucial. There is therefore, infact, speaking for myself, no need for any oral evidence which may amount to giving evidence in respect of the content of a document or documents. This is because of the settled law firstly, that prima facie oral evidence will not be admitted to prove, vary or alter or add to the term of any contract which has been reduced into writing when the document is in existence except the document itself.
"A party cannot rely on and take benefit of the contents of a document and at the same time, turn round to question the validity or legality of the same document.
"In respect of the issue of the use to which the learned trial judge put the affidavit of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants even after they had been struck out as parties before the Court, it goes without saying that a Court is entitled to look at all documents in the file of the case before it in arriving at its decision in order to arrive at a just decision.
"the documents relied on herein even by both parties as conceded by the 2nd and 3rd respondents have emanated from proper source i.e. from the custody of the 1st respondent (INEC) and are public documents duly certified by it. These are authentic documents by any standards to be relied upon and therefore are entitled to be given credence and weight. See: Shitta-Bey v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1998) 7 S.C. (Pt. II) 121; (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 392." Per CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.S.C. (P.50, Paras.C-F) HONOURABLE GOZIE AGBAKOBA V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS(2008) LPELR-232(SC)
Sometimes the line between what is investigation and what is evaluation of documentary evidence is blurred and difficult to define, the distinction is that whereas investigation leads to the discovery of fresh facts, the truth of which could have been challenged by fresh contrary evidence; evaluation of evidence leads merely to finding based on the quality of evidence already existing.
APGA vs Al-Makura & 3 ors[2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Po 90) Paras. E-F
It is anathema for a Judge to be allowed to act on what he discovered from such a document in relation to an issue when that was not supported by evidence or was not brought to the notice of the parties to be agitated in the usual adversarial procedure.
While admissibility is based on relevance, the probative value to be attached on the document depends not only on relevance but on proof The fact that they have been admitted in evidence does not necessarily render them reliable. Buhari v. INEC (2008) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 1.
Maku vs Al-Makura & 3 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 132] Paras. E-F
Where a document ought to be signed and it is not, its authenticity is in doubt. An unsigned document carries no weight. Omega Bank (Nig) Pic v. OB.e. Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547; Ikem v. Bidah Packaging Ltd (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 601) 1476 at 1507, Ojo v. Adejobi & Ors. (1978) NSCC (vol. 11) 161.
Maku vs Al-Makura & 3 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 132] Paras. C-D