In the case of Lamido V FRN (Unreported) Appeal No. CA/K/436/C/2013, this Court per Abiru, JCA stated thus – “A look at this provision vis-a-vis the provision of Section 111(1) of the Evidence Act, Cap E14, Laws of the Federation 1990 interpreted in Tabik Investment Ltd V Guaranty Trust Bank (supra) shows that they are similar, but for the fact that the requirement for the payment of legal fees for certification in Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is qualified by the words “prescribed in that respect”. This qualification is not contained in the provision of Section 111 of the Evidence Act, 1990. It is a fundamental rule of interpretation of statute that words used in a statute are not put there for fun; they are for a purpose. The inclusion of the words “prescribed in that respect” by the legislature in Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 could not have been by mistake or by oversight. It was intended to have a meaning and effect.”
ESSENCE OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION
The essence of certification of a public document is to show that the contents of the document are the same with the original. See the case of OWOR VS CHRISTOPHER & ANOR (2008) LPELR-4815, OKADIGHO & ORS VS OJECHI & ORS (2011) LPELR-4687.
— A. Osadebay, J. APC v INEC & Ors. (EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023, 20th Day of September, 2023)