Documentary Evidence (136)
HELD:
"The learned trial Judge went on to discountenance Exhibits F - F4 on the ground that they were dumped on the Court.
HELD:
"It is an elementary principle that documentary evidence is used as a hanger to test veracity of evidence, whether oral or by affidavit - see Gbileve V. Addingi (supra), Kimdey V. Mil. Gov. Gongola (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.77) 445 and Fashanu V. Adekoya (1974) 4 SC 83.
HELD:
"The law is settled that a document when tendered and admitted in Court are like words altered and do speak for themselves.
HELD:
"Again, the whole essence of the Court's insistence on the scrupulous adherence to the above certification requirement of public documents is to vouchsafe their authenticity.
HELD:
"From the provision of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011, there is no doubt that Exhibit "D" being a Certificate of Valuation purportedly submitted by the Respondent is a public document.
HELD:
"A document is said to be a public document when it borders on public interest, or the business of the public.
HELD:
"Now, by the combined effects of Sections 85 and 86 of the Evidence Act 2011, the contents of document may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence.
HELD:
"The documents in question are Exhibit RON 3, 4, and 4A respectively. All these documents, the parties, and trial Court conceded are public documents.
HELD:
"I just want to add my voice to the issue of when a document is tendered without any objection the opposing party cannot on appeal argue otherwise, the Supreme Court in the case NASIR V CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION KANO STATE & ORS (2010) LPELR-1943(SC) reiterated the point when it held: