Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

RATIONALE FOR CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

One main objective behind section 97(2)(c) of the Evidence Act is to ensure the authenticity of the document tendered vis-a-vis the original. This is in addition to the need for the preservation of public documents. In this age of sophisticated technology, photo tricks are the order of the day and secondary evidence produced in the context of section 97(2)(a) could be tutored and therefore not the authentic. Photo tricks could be applied in the process of copying the original document with the result that the copy, which is secondary evidence, does not completely and totally reflect the original and therefore not a carbon copy of the original. The Court has not the eyes of an eagle to detect such tricks.” Section 97 (1) (e) clearly stated that when the original of a document is a public document within the meaning of section 109, secondary evidence of it may be given, and, by virtue of section 97 (2) (c), the only secondary evidence required is a certified copy and no other copy is admissible. By the aforestated cases of the Supreme Court, it is clear that original copy of a public document can be tendered in a proceeding.

– T.N. Orji-Abadua, JCA. Kabau v. Rilwanu (2013) – CA/K/179/2001

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

JUDGMENT OF A COURT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND MUST BE CERTIFIED

In Nzekwu v. Nzekwu (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 104) 373, this court held that a judgment of a court being a public document within the meaning of that expression in section 108 of the Evidence Act and because of the combined effect of section 96(1)(e) and (2)(c) of the Evidence Act, 1958 the secondary evidence admissible in respect of the original document constituting the proceedings and judgment of a court is a certified true copy of the document but no other kind of secondary evidence.

Was this dictum helpful?

CERTIFICATION: PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS

In Tabik Investment Ltd V Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (2011) LPELR-3131 (SC); & Biye V Biye (2014) LPELR-24003(CA) amongst other numerous decisions, the Supreme Court and this Court have stated emphatically that payment of legal fees and evidence of same is an integral part of the certification process, it cannot be waived and none can be exempted from paying such certification fees. It is not in issue that the documents tendered as Exhibit 41 are public documents, and the law is that for them to be legally admissible evidence, they must be duly certified – Sections 102 to 105 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Alamieyeseigha V FRN (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1004) 1; & Araka V Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 848). It is also the law that, with regard to public documents, persons interested in being issued with certified true copies of same by those having custody of them, must pay the prescribed fees before same are issued.

— J.H. Sankey, JCA. Brila Energy Ltd. v. FRN (2018) – CA/L/658CA/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

QUALIFICATION FOR CERTIFICATION – “PRESCRIBED IN THAT RESPECT”

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 172 | UO – 0 | GO – 111 | BO – 61

External link(s)

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