Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

It is trite that a document speaks for itself. – Onnoghen JCA. Union Bank v. Akinrinmade (1999)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

FAIR HEARING NOT BREACHED WHEN A DOCUMENT IS EXPUNGED BY TRIAL JUDGE

I have seen in recent times counsel forcing into cases the principles of fair hearing even when they are so distant from the case. The principles of fair hearing will not be invoked in favour of a party where the trial Judge correctly expunges an exhibit earlier admitted. It is only when the document is wrongly or wrongfully expunged from the record that a party can be heard to canvass to an appellate court that he was denied fair hearing. – Niki Tobi, JSC. Brossette v. Ilemobola (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

CONTENT OF DOCUMENT BINDING ON PARTIES

It is an established principle of law, that the contents of a document are binding on the party who being of full capacity appends his signature to it. He cannot thereafter resile from it or choose an alternative course. – Augie JSC. Bank v. TEE (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTRADICT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

A.-G., Enugu State v. Avop Plc. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 399) 90 at 125, D per Tobi JCA: ‘And what is more, it is a general principle of law that oral evidence cannot be allowed to contradict documentary evidence. Sec generally section 132(1) of the Evidence Act Cap. 112, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. This principle of law is based on the premise that (a) the document was first in time and that the possibility of the oral evidence becoming an after thought cannot be entirely ruled out; (b) witness tells more lies than a document. Although a document can also lie by human intervention, the frequency of the lies on the part of a witness in court is much more than a document.’

Was this dictum helpful?

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WEIGHS ORAL TESTIMONY

The Documentary evidence lends weight to oral testimony. It serves as an action from which oral testimony is weighed for good measure. – Nwodo, JCA. OLAM v. Intercontinental Bank (2009)

Was this dictum helpful?

READING TWO DOCUMENTS TOGETHER

In Burgess v. Cox (1951) Ch. 383 Harman, J., (as he then was), found that he could read two documents together to remedy the deficiency of the defendant’s signature lacking in the first document relied on as being a memorandum when it was obvious that if the two documents were placed side by side, they referred to the same transaction.

Was this dictum helpful?

TENDERING OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

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.

— C.B. Ogunbiyi, JSC. Kassim v. State (2017) – SC.361/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.