Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

PURPOSE OF EXHIBITS IN A CASE

Dictum

Furthermore in LAMIDI v. STATE (2016) LPELR-41320(CA), the Court of Appeal had occasion to pronounce on the purpose of exhibit in the case of Buba v. State (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 215) 1 at 17, per Makhtar, JCA, thus: “Exhibits are not tendered and admitted in Court for the fun of it, they are for a purpose albeit to assist in determining the relevance of the exhibits to the case. Secondly, once they form part of the record they must be examined, scrutinized and assessed for just determination of the case.” See also, Ayinde v. Salawu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 297 at 314 at 314-315 and R V. Ukpong (1961) 1 ALL NLR 25.” Per DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Pp. 47-48, Paras. E-B).

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

EXHIBITS ADMITTED AND MARKED CAN BE USED

The law is most elementary that a court of law is most competent to make use of exhibits admitted and marked.

— Tobi, JCA. Abraham v Olorunfunmi (1990) – CA/L/83/89

Was this dictum helpful?

EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO AFFIDAVIT ARE NOT TENDERED PER SE BUT ARE PART OF AFFIDAVIT

✓ Ojuya v. Nzeogwu (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 427) 713 per Ige JCA at 722. “It is my view that the learned trial Judge was wrong in holding that all the attached exhibits were inadmissible without making reference to each exhibit specifically. This being a case decided on affidavit evidence the attached exhibits are not formally tendered as such in evidence and the contents therein are not disputed hence they cannot be dismissed by a wave of the hand on mere technicality”.

✓ In Bature v. Savannah Bank (Nig) Ltd (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 16 546) 438, 444, Ogebe, JCA, as he then was, dealt with the same question in the following manner: “For the appellant’s counsel to argue that certain documents were admissible or inadmissible is completely irrelevant. I therefore find it unnecessary to go into the issue of admissibility of the documents being questioned. The documents were exhibited in the affidavit for judgment and the trial Court merely looked at them … They were not admitted in evidence formally”.

✓ Ezechukwu v. Onwuka (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 529, 562, Peter–Odili, JSC, held thus: “However, it is also trite law that all documents attached to an affidavit …form part of the affidavit in question and it is not possible to raise objection to its admissibility in the affidavit of the respondent without running counter to Section 87 of the Evidence Act 1990”.

Was this dictum helpful?