Sections 89(h) and 90(i)(e) of the Evidence Act, 2011 does not require production of books of accounts but makes entries in such books relevant for the purpose of admissibility. In fact, the cardinal legal requirement for the use of the entries made in the bank’s book of account is that the entries copied were made in the usual and ordinary course of business of a bank. Esso (WA) V. Oyegbola (1969) NWLR 194; FRN V. Fani-Kayode (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1214) 481.
As stated earlier, the cardinal and most important legal requirement for the use of copies as secondary evidence of a banker’s book is that the entries copied were made in the usual and ordinary course of the business of the bank. What this means is that such entries must not be one which was made specially or separately at an appointed time but in the usual course and the usual time when the bank carries out its general business and in very normal or ordinary manner in which such transaction is carried on. Apparently, the purpose for this is to ensure the genuineness and control of the original record. FRN V. Fani-Kayode (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1214) 481; Sections 89(h), 90(i)(e) Evidence Act, 2011.
The Evidence Act, 2011 does not attach any relevance to the means by which the document or entries copied from the bank’s book of account are made. How the copies are made, that is the device used in making the copies, whether by longhand writing; by a duplicating machine or through a computer printout is not relevant. What is necessary is that accurate information is made from the banks book of account entered in the ordinary course of business of the bank and not some false document that seek to mislead the court Unity Life & Fire Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Ibwa (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 7130 610.
As stated before, for secondary evidence of bank’s statement of account to be admissible in evidence the following must be satisfied:
These conditions being a matter of procedural form, where such secondary evidence is tendered without meeting the stated requirements or conditions without the opposing party objecting to its admission without the fulfilment of the stated conditions he will deemed to have waived his right to so object, and the secondary evidence will be admitted. Oguma V. Ibwa (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 658; Oghoyone V. Oghoyone (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 564.
Entries in a book of account are admissible whenever it refers to a matter into which the court has to inquire. However, such statement is not on its own alone sufficient evidence to charge and convict any person of liability. Evidence must be given in support of the bank statement brought before the court. Tendering a bank’s statement of account alone may amount to dumping document before the court when bank statements are only produced without evidence adduced in support of its content. It is stated under S.51 of the Evidence Act, 2011 that “…but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability” So, quite clearly, mere tendering of bank statement is not sufficient explanation of debts and lodgment. Section 51 Evidence Act, 2011. B.E.G.H. Ltd. V. U.H.S. & 2 Ltd. (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 246.
Central Bank of Nigeria guidelines are not subsidiary legislations and do not fall within the class of document that the court must take judicial notice of. Any Central Bank of Nigeria guideline, charges, interest rates, policy statements, etc. etc. sought to be relied upon by a party in his case will be good evidence that the court may take into account in deciding the case only if they be proved in evidence by providing or producing same in court. UBA Plc. V. Ifeoluwa (Nig) Ent. Ltd. (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1032) 77; Okoro V. Okoro (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1177) 198 CA.