A party to a suit can rely on documentary evidence in any proceeding. The use of documentary evidence is not limited to a particular proceeding. Documentary evidence can be used in any proceeding where direct oral evidence of a fact would ordinarily be admissible. Where the statement in a document seeks to establish that fact that ordinarily can be given in evidence orally, then the document upon production would be admissible. See Section 83(1) Evidence Act, 2011.
Of course. The fact that a document is produced by a party does not by the reason of it being a document make it acceptable to the court. For documentary evidence to be admissible the following requirements or conditions must be met:
The document must be pleaded, even when not specifically pleaded as long as the fact in support of such document are pleaded it will be admissible. Generally, it is facts that are pleaded and not documents. Documents are tendered in support of the facts pleaded.
Oghonoyo V. Oghonoyo (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 564 (at 587). The document must be relevant. The basis of admissibility in court proceeding is relevancy.
The document must be admissible.
The document must not be one based on hearsay. That is the document must be one based on the personal knowledge of the maker.
The maker must be called as a witness in the proceeding.
**Sections 1, 6, 83(1) Evidence Act, 2011.
Chevron (Nig) Ltd. V. Aderibigbe (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 1 CA; Odunsi V. Bamgbala (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 374) 641 (at 677); NNPC V. A.I.C. (2001) 49 W.R.N 140. Ajaegbo V. The State (2018) HELAR ratio 5**
Not really. Although, Section 83(1)(b) Evidence Act, 2011 requires that the maker of a document be called as a witness for the document to be admissible, the proviso to the said section makes some exceptions. The maker of the document need not be called as witness in a proceeding when he is dead, or he is unfit by reason of his bodily or mental condition to attend as a witness or by some reason it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance as a witness or where having made reasonable effort to find the maker yet all the efforts proved abortive.
Furthermore, the maker of a document need not be called as a witness where the content of the document and the truth contained therein is not disputed by the other party. However, where a document is challenged as unauthentic, the maker of the document should be called to support the document otherwise the court will attach no weight to it. See Section 83(1)(b),(2) Evidence Act, 2011.
Aregbesola V. Oyinlola (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1253) 458 (at 586-587); Ajaegbo V. The State (2018) HELAR ratio 6
It is the duty of the party who tendered a document before the court to establish that the document tendered is indeed relevant to the fact of the case in dispute. The court has no duty to embark on its own independent research and carry out analysis of the documents and come out with results of its own private investigation. The effect of a party’s failure to establish the relevance of document tendered is that such document remains a worthless piece of paper dumped on the temple of justice. No evidential value is attached to them.
Iniama v. Akpabio (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1116) 225 CA; Aso Savings & Loans Plc V. Adamu (2017) HELAR ratio 4
No. Although a document is expected to be tendered through the maker, the fact that a document is not tendered through the maker does not for that reason alone make it inadmissible. A document can be tendered by the party who has custody of it. So, it is not mandatory that a document must be tendered through its maker. The court may admit a document in evidence even if the maker is available but not called as a witness.
Obembe V. Ekele (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 722) 677 at 693-674; Udo V. Eshiet (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 483at 500; Aso Savings & Loans Plc V. Adamu (2017) HELAR ratio 1
A document prepared by a witness though signed by someone else is a document that would be admissible because it is a statement made by the witness and the witness is responsible for its accuracy.
Ordia V. Piedmont (Nig) Ltd. (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 379) 516 (at 535).
Absolutely. The court is clothed with the discretion to either admit or refuse a document. Where for instance the truth of the statement of a document is in issue and the maker of the document was not called as a witness, the court may admit same where it is relevant but the weight to be attached to it will definitely be less. Also where the document is irrelevant and of no purpose to the fact of the case, the court has the discretion to reject same.
But, like in all issues of the court’s exercise of discretion, it is expected that the court’s exercise of discretion in this instance must be exercised judiciously and judicially.
Obembe V. Ekele (200 1) 10 NWLR (Pt. 722) 677 (at 693-674); Olumuyiwa V. The State (2019) HELAR ratio 5
No. Obviously, where the witness is not the maker of the document and the truth of the said document is contested by the other party, a witness who cannot answer questions as to the contents and the authenticity or veracity of same cannot help the court in reaching the right decision on it. A document will be expunged and rightly so where the witness who tendered it is not the maker and so cannot be cross-examined on the content of the document. Cross-examination plays a vital role in the truth searching process of testimony given under examination in chief. The court is not bound to accept such document, not minding its relevance. Since the content is in dispute the court is not bound to accept and place reliance on a document that did not pass the test of cross examination.
Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246 (at 415).
It is not improper for the court to refer to other pages or portions of a document admitted in arriving at its decision. In fact, once a document has been tendered as an exhibit, the court has the right and indeed the duty to read it communally or holistically and refer to any portion of the document in order to arrive at a just decision and not necessarily only the page tendered.
Otuo V. Nteogwuile (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 440) 56 (at 67).
Documentary evidence is the best form of evidence. The content of a document is so superior that it forms the basis upon which oral evidence is to be believed. Oral evidence although valid evidence, cannot vary the content of a written document. The court would readily believe the content of a written document over oral evidence of witness as it is not easily manipulated unlike oral evidence. However, there are times where notwithstanding the existence of a document, the oral evidence of parties would be relied on by the court. Where the content of a document is in dispute, the court would call oral evidence to settle the dispute arising from the document.
Section 128(1) Evidence Act, 2011.Abiodun Joseph V. Fajemilehin (2012) LPELR-9849 (23); Ashakacem Plc V. A. M. Investment Limited (2019) HELAR ratio 1
No. The mere fact a document had been tendered and admitted in evidence does not by that fact alone amount to proof that its content are valid and correct. What determine that a document is indeed valid and correct is the weight attached to it and the reason given in the judgment by the court. See Aromolaran V. Kupoluyi (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 325) 221 (at 244).
The stage for objection to the admissibility of a document is when the document is offered in evidence. Where a document is about to be tendered in evidence by the party seeking to rely on same, the party who intends to oppose same is expected to do so immediately it is offered in evidence. This is a cardinal rule of evidence and of practice in judicial proceeding. Failure to object to its admissibility at the point of its tendering, the effect will be admission and the adverse party cannot object to the admissibility again even on appeal. See Vincent Standard Trading Co. v. Xtodeus Trading Co. (Nig) Ltd. (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 296)75 at 695-679; Sani V Kogi State House Of Assembly (2019) HELAR ratio 3; Azoryeme V. State (2017) HELAR ratio 3
Documents tendered by a party with the consent of the adverse party and admitted by the court ought to be given full legal effect. However, the court has no discretion to admit documents otherwise inadmissible. The consent of the parties cannot confer discretion on the court. Where such document somehow miraculously gets admitted by the court in evidence, the court would not be right to base its decision on it. Inadmissible evidence is no evidence. The fact that the opposing party did not object to its admissibility does not by such reason make it admissible.
Gbadamosi v. Okege (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1233) 175 (at 206); Longe v. First Bank of Nig. Plc. (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 228 at 280.
It depends largely on how the situation plays out. Was the request to withdraw made after the party seeking to withdraw had join issue with the adverse party who object to the document in relation to the document’s admissibility? Where for instance a claimant seeks to tender a document and the defendant’s counsel objects to its admissibility, the refusal of the court to allow the claimant’s counsel to withdraw the document will be in error. This is because the Claimant’s counsel has not joined issue with the Defendant’s counsel on the admissibility of the document. It would only have been necessary to reject the request to withdraw the document in evidence if the claimant’s counsel argues that it was receivable in evidence.
Haastrup V. Roro Terminal Co. Ltd. (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 819) 358 at 364-365.
Except where a document tendered is rejected by reason of a fundamental error on the part of the presiding judge, any document tendered and rejected cannot be re-tendered even on appeal. The effect is that the document and its evidence goes to no issue. Once a document is tendered during the proceedings and it is declared inadmissible, it stands rejected and it is marked “Tendered and rejected”. The rejected document is kept by the court which hears the case for the period it will last. Where the need for appeal arises, the document is then sent to the Appellate court where there is an appeal.
Babatola V. Aladejana (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 728) 597 at 609.
No, it is not compulsory. Where a maker of a document has admitted on oath what is contained in his statement, there is no necessity for it to be tendered any longer. This is because the admission becomes part of the claimant’s case (as the case maybe) and is evidence against the maker.
Okonkwo V. Ogbogu (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 449) 421 at 433.
Date and signature are very important aspect to the admissibility of a document in a court proceeding.
Where a document is not signed, it is a worthless piece of paper and same cannot be admitted in evidence. Even when admitted, the court would not attach any probative value to the document. This is because a document which is not signed has no origin in terms of its maker. A date on the other hand is not so fundamental when absent in a document. Where a document is undated, the reason for not dating same can be proved orally and such oral evidence is admissible.
Omega Bank (Nig) Plc. V. OBC Ltd.(2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.928) 547 at 581; M/S Ilembola Co. Ltd. v. Gov. Kaduna State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt.666) 633 at 645; Ashakacem Plc V. A. M. Investment Limited (2019) HELAR ratio 5
No. The fact that a land document for example is not stamped does not mean such document is inadmissible by reason of this only. The reason is because the purpose for stamping a document is to raise revenue. A document not stamped could be duly ordered to be stamped and admitted in evidence.
Ogbahon v. Registered Trustees Christ’s Chosen Church of God (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 675 at 704.
A document tendered for identification and admitted for the purpose of identification is not one admitted as evidence. A judge cannot rely on document tendered, not as an exhibit in evidence but one marked for identification.
Emetuma V. Ngwumohaike (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 283) 612 at 626.
Where a document is clear, the operative words in it should be given their simple and ordinary grammatical meaning. See Union Bank v. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385 (at 403); Ashakacem Plc V. A. M. Investment Limited (2019) HELAR ratio 1
Very irrelevant. Document made by a person interested in a case or in anticipation of a suit or at the pendency of such suit is inadmissible as evidence to the fact disputed which the statement might tend to establish. That is, where a person knows that a suit is coming against him, he may likely prepare himself by making a statement which will avail him of any wrong or which will one way or the other defeat the justice which the suit tends to establish, such statement will not be admissible in evidence. In fact, any statement made by a person in anticipation of a judicial proceeding or during the pendency of a judicial proceeding, such statement is inadmissible in evidence especially where the maker is a person interested in the suit. See Section 84(3) Evidence Act, 2011; Ashakacem Plc V. A. M. Investment Limited (2019) HELAR ratio 4
No statutory definition is given as to the meaning of a “person interested”. However, in GBADAMOSI v. KABO TRAVELS LTD. (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 243 CA. It was held that where a person has some form of interest whether personal or financial on the outcome of a judicial proceeding, then such person is indeed “a person interested” in a judicial proceeding.
In determining whether a person is a person interested in a suit, the court usually looks at how independent the person is in relation to the suit. Is such person one who has no temptation to depart from the truth on one side or the other?
Is he one who is not swayed by personal interest? Is he detached, impartial, judicial and independent?
N.S.I.T.F.M.B V. Kufo (Nig) Ltd. (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 534) 73; Abdullahi V. Maitsidau (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 653) 2029.
No. Of course document made by a party in anticipation or during the pendency of a judicial proceeding is inadmissible in evidence under section 83(3) Evidence Act, 2011. However, this will not be the case where such document is made by a party in the course of his official duty and there is no evidence of personal interest by such party, the document will be admissible in this instance.
CPC & Anor. v. Ombugadu & Anor (2013) Vol. 7 (Pt. 11) M.J.S.C 121.
Documents speak for themselves once tendered and admitted in court. They are like words uttered, yet they are more reliable and authentic than words from the vocal cord of man because they are neither transient nor subject to distortion and misinterpretation but they remain permanent through the ages. They bear eloquent testimony to the fact in dispute.
Akinbisade v. State (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 184; Eke V. FRN (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 7020 1804; Ashakacem Plc V. A. M. Investment Limited (2019) HELAR ratio 1
Where there is a subsisting order of court for the inspection of document and the order is disobeyed by a party before the court would act on the matter, disobedience of the order would invite consequences depending on who the defaulting party is. If the defaulting party is the Defendant, then the consequence of his disobedience is committal for contempt of court. However, if the disobedience party is the Plaintiff, then the action will be dismissed, dismissal in this instance is not on the merit.
Olusanya v. Osibamowo (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 650)1375 at 1397-1398; Samuels v. Linzi Dresses Ltd. (1980) 1 All E.R. 803
No. Where there is a subsisting order of the court on the inspection of document and the Plaintiff disobeys this order, of course his action would be dismissed for want of diligent prosecution. However, this dismissal is not one done on the merit of the case. Furthermore, the dismissal does not stop the defaulting plaintiff from tendering in evidence the document sought for inspection. What the defaulting Plaintiff is expected to do is to revive the action by praying the court for extension of time for compliance with the order of the court for inspection.
Olusanya v. Osibamowo (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 650) 1395 at1397-1398.
Where a party relying on a document as evidence to prove his case is unable to provide the said document in court and he gives no satisfactory explanation as to his inability to provide the said document, the court would construe such document against him. That is, the court will presume that such document if bought would not be in favour of the person relying on it as such, that there is a deliberate refusal of such a person to provide the document. The court will take it that the document is not favourable to the party who initially relied on it.
Oceanic Securities Int’l Ltd. V. Balogun (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 643) 1897; Aso Savings & Loans Plc V. Adamu (2017) HELAR ratio 3
The court will ascribe no probation value to such document except the party relying on it can prove the genuineness of the document. Only genuine or authentic documents have probative value and the court of law cannot give any weight to any document that is lacking in genuineness or authenticity. The burden is on the party who tenders it to prove the genuineness before the court will rely on it.
Offodile V. Onejeme (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 608) 946 at 966-967; Chitex Industries Ltd. v.O.B.I. (Nig.) Ltd (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 276) 610, (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 392; Trade Bank Plc v. Morenikeji (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 309; Olufunke V Minister FCT (2017) HELAR ratio 3
It is very proper. A court in its appellate jurisdiction is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate and even draw the necessary inference and conclusion from the document tendered by the parties for the just determination of the appeal before it since that does not require any consideration of the countenance, composure and credibility of witness. The documents speak for themselves and can be evaluated by an appellate court as by the trial court
Salami V. Ajadi (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 615) 242 at 317 paras. C-D; Olubodun v. Lawal (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 434) 1468; Yaro v. Arewa Construction Ltd (2007) 10 MJSC 166, (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 400) 603
Of course not. Where the oral evidence of a witness remains unchallenged, documentary evidence becomes unnecessary. Documents are usually tendered as exhibits where their terms are in dispute and need to be construed. However, where there is no dispute as to what the term is or content or existence thereof, same need not be tendered in court.
Unity Bank Plc. V. Automotive C.N. Ltd. (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 610) 1265 at 1311; Kano v. Oyelakin (1993) 12 SCNJ 65; Adelebare v. Niger Motors Ltd. (1974) 5 SC 1
It is not enough for a party to plead and tender a document as evidence in a suit without relating such evidence to the specific area of his case he wants the said documents to apply. Such party must link the evidence to the suit. It would amount to dumping document on court where the party relying on the document fails to link it to the specific areas of his case.
Ucha v. Elechi (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 625) 237 at 258; A.N.P.P v. I.N.E.C. (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 549; Olufunke V Minister FCT (2017) HELAR ratio 2
Where a party fails to link an evidence to the specific area of the case it relates, the court will discountenance his case. The court cannot take on this burden on behalf of the party. No court would spend precious judicial time linking documents to specific areas of a party’s case. The duty of the court entails examining the case as presented by the parties in accordance with the standard well laid down. Where the court abandoned his duty and start investigating documents not proper before him, the court may likely be submitted in the dust of the conflict and render a perverse judgment in the process.
Ucha V. Elechi (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 625) 258; A.N.P.P v. I.N.E.C. (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 549; Olufunke V Minister FCT (2017) HELAR ratio 2
In order to obtain a balance picture in interpreting documentary evidence, the court usually looks at the entire document and interpret them as a whole. The court does not construe a document in part.
Whether a document is only in part convenient to a party in a suit is of no concern to the court. The court will not interpret a document before it in pockets convenient to a party.
Akinbisade V. State (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 344) 7 Nigeria Merchant Bank Plc. V. Garba (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 688) 1004 at 1014.
It is very improper. The court has no discretion whatsoever to discountenance especially where such document is relevant and germane to the justiciable resolution of the issue in contention.
A court cannot pretend not to see a document properly tendered before it.
Nagogo V. C.P.C (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 685) 272 at 307.
Document tendered from the bar once relevant and not contested are valid evidence. However, a document that is contested in court must demonstrate their purport and worth through a witness. Where a document which is a subject of contention is tendered from the bar without calling a witness to dispel such contention, the court would attach no probative value to the said document.
Ucha V. Elechi (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 625) 237 (at 258).A.C.N v. Nyako (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 686) 479
The fact that a disclaimer appears on a document does not make such document outrightly destroyed. The effect of a disclaimer is that it limits the scope and operation of the document for the express purpose tied to the disclaimer. The appearance of a disclaimer on a document is not as important as what was expressed to be disclaimed.
INEC V. Atuma (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 697) 619 at 643.
Where a document lacks an essential element or has some of its part missing, such is said to be an incomplete document. An incomplete document cannot be relied upon by the court until its missing portions are produced. It cannot be admitted in evidence. Also an appeal cannot be heard on incomplete records.
G.T.B v. Ogwuzzy-Ndika (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 914) 1050 at 1075-1076; Babanlungu v. Zarewa (2013) LPELR 20726; Ekpomupolo v. Adremoda (2009) All FWLR (Pt.473) 1220, (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1142) 166
Not really. An inference of fraud does not immediately follow from the mere fact that an incomplete document was tendered. Except there is proof for such conclusion, incompleteness of a document may not necessarily be the result of a deliberate fraudulent act.
G.T.B v. Ogwuzzy-Ndika (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 914) 1050 at 1075-1076.
The courts use the ordinary and plain meaning as contained in the document. In the construction of a document the parties are presumed to intend what they have in fact said or written down. Accordingly, the words employed by them will be so construed in accordance with the ordinary meaning contained in the document except certain circumstances for instance where trade usage dictates that a particular construction ought to be applied in order to give effect to the particular intention envisage by the parties.
Bolaji v. Tejuosho (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 869) 892; UBN V. Nwaokolo (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 127. Paul V. Saraha Homes (Nig.) Ltd (2017) HELAR ratio 1
Yes, a document can be regarded as properly tendered by referring to it in an affidavit. The opposing party would have the opportunity to challenge it, if he so desires, through a proper deposition to that effect in his counter-affidavit. See S.E.S Newspaper v. Anwara (1975) 9-11 SC 55; Osita C. Nwosu v. Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority & Ors. (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 688; Nig. Cement Plc. v. Obidike (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 909) 188.
The language of the court in Nigeria is English therefore all transactions taking place or happening in the court during judicial proceeding must be in English language.
A document written in the language of the parties to a suit which is not English is inadmissible as evidence in court. Even where it is admitted by the court without any objection from the adverse party, same will be expunged. A document written in a language that is not English has no evidential value and will not be admissible as evidence in court. See Abolarin V. Ogundele (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1308) 253 CA.
Of course not. The fact that evidence of parties to a suit or a witness in a suit or document tendered in a suit is one done in foreign language is only an inconvenience that can be straightened by the presence of an interpreter called by the parties themselves or by the official interpreter of the court. Take for instance a document in foreign language such document is ordinarily inadmissible in evidence except where it is translated into English language and tendered along the previous document which is not in English. It is important to note however that it is not the courts responsibility to find or call an interpreter?
Asinuola V. Fatodu (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 11360 184; Isitor V. Fakorede (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1069) 602 CA.
Statements or documents prepared by or gotten from computers are admissible in evidence as if it was direct oral evidence as long as it complies substantially with the following conditions:
That the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during the period the computer was generally used to store and process information.
That the information contained in the statement is one derived over a period were such kind was regularly supplied to the computer in the usual course of those activity.
That the information contained in the document is one derived from the information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.
That throughout the process, the computer was operating properly or if not, that the production of the document or its accuracy was not affected.
Section 84(4)(a-b) Evidence Act, 2011; Shaukat & Raza (PTY) ltd v Government of Gombe State (2021) HELAR ratio 7
The content of a document can be proved by tendering either the primary or secondary evidence, after the facts therein which the party seeks to establish mush have been properly pleaded. When the content of a document is disputed, the party seeking to place reliance on the document may prove the content thereof by either providing the original document or by the tendering of secondary evidence after laying the proper foundation. Generally speaking, the content of a document cannot be proved or established by the words of mouth. Section 85 Evidence Act, 2011. P.M.L Sec. Co. Ltd. V. FRN (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1450) 551 CA; Ogundele V. Agiri (2009) 18 NWLR (PT. 1173) 219.