STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED INSTRUMENT; UNREGISTERED INSTRUMENT TO EVIDENCE PURCHASE RECEIPT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

I must note right away, that the admissibility or otherwise of an unregistered registerable instrument depends on the purpose for which it is being sought to be admitted. – Nweze JSC. Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

admissibility, document

INHERENTLY INADMISSIBLE DOCUMENT CAN BE JETTISONED AT JUDGEMENT WRITING STAGE

Nonetheless, it is the law, that an already admitted document can be jettisoned by a court at a judgment stage or by an appellate court if it is inherently inadmissible even if it was admitted without objection, see Abubakar v. Joseph (supra); Abubakar v. Chuks(2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 386; Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) 11NWLR (Pt. 1364) 117. Again, it is the law that a document not tendered by the marker commands no probative value because, he cannot be subjected to cross-examination on it, Belgore v. Ahmed(2013) 8 nwlr (pt. 1355) 60.

— Ogbuinya JCA. Benjamin Agi V. Access Bank Plc (formerly known and called Intercontinental Bank Plc (CA/MK/86/2012, 28 Nov 2013)

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT IS ONE THING; WEIGHT IS ANOTHER THING

The fact that a document has been admitted in evidence, with or without objection, does not necessarily mean that the document has established or made out the evidence contained therein, and must be accepted by the trial Judge. It is not automatic. Admissibility of a document is one thing and the weight the court will attach to it is another. The weight the Court will attach to the document will depend on the circumstances of the case as contained or portrayed in the evidence.

— N. Tobi JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)

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?

RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY DISTINCTION

Relevancy and weight are in quite distinct compartments in our law of evidence. They convey two separate meanings in our adjectival law and not in any form of dovetail. In the order of human action or activity, in the area of the law of evidence, relevancy comes before weight. Relevancy, which propels admissibility, is invoked by the trial Judge immediately the document is tendered. At that stage, the Judge applies sections 6, 7, 8 and other relevant provisions of the Evidence Act to determine the relevance or otherwise of the document tendered. If the document is relevant, the Judge admits it, if all other aspects of our adjectival law are in favour of such admission. If the document is irrelevant, it is rejected with little or no ado. Weight comes in after the document has been admitted. This is at the stage of writing the judgment or ruling as the case may be. At that stage the Judge is involved in the evaluation or the evidence vis-a-vis the document admitted. While logic is the determinant of admissibility and relevancy, weight is a matter of law with some taint of facts.

— N. Tobi JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

TENDER DOCUMENT FROM THE BAR – PARTY WHO MAKES DOCUMENT MUST BE CALLED TO TESTIFY

Abubakar v. INEC [2020] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1737) 37 @ p. 110: “Before I conclude on this issue, let me state that whenever documents are tendered from the Bar in election matters, the purport is to speed up the trial in view of time limitation in election matters. Such tendering is not the end itself but a means to an end. The makers of such tendered document must be called to speak to those documents and be crossexamined on the authenticity of the documents. The law is trite that a party who did not make a document is not competent to give evidence on it. It is also the tested position of the law that where the maker of the document is not called to testify, the document would not be accorded probative value by the Court. That in deed is the fate of exhibits P80 and P24… Finally, on this issue, it was contended by the appellants that the variation in the names of 2nd respondent on Exhibits R19 and R21 makes his relationship with the two documents doubtful. Is “Mohammed” and “Muhammadu” the same name and belong to the 2nd respondent? The Court below made an elaborate discussion on the issue and concluded that RW5 gave explanation on the names and stated that they are the same…. For me, as the appellants failed to prove that any of the documents belong to another person and as nobody has come out to claim any of the two exhibits, I do agree with the explanation given by the RW5 and the conclusions of the Court below that both names “Mohammed” and “Muhammadu” as contained in exhibits R19 and R21 belong to the 2nd respondent. On this note, I resolve issues one and two against the appellants.”

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT WILL EXPUNGE INADMISSIBLE EXHIBIT RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE

The law is that where a Court has received evidence that is inadmissible, the proper thing is to expunge such evidence from the records; see Zenith bank Plc v. Ekereuwem (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1290) at 213 214. Consequently, I make an Order expunging Exhs. PW1-A1 PW1-A7 from the record of this Court in this case.

— I.E. Ekwo J. Mbah v. NYSC, Ibrahim Muhammad (FHC/ABJ/CS/611/2023, 10-NOV-2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.