Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS NOT ADMISSIBLE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

The Supreme Court in Omega Bank (Nig) Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd. [2005] 8 NWLR (Part 928) 547 at 587 Paragraphs C – D per Tobi, JSC (as he then was) the Apex Court held inter alia that: “… It is my view that where a document is not signed, it may not be admitted in evidence. Even if it is admitted in evidence, the Court should not attach any probative value to it. This is because a document which is not signed has no origin in terms of its maker….at page 582 Paragraph A, His Lordship, Tobi, JSC of blessed memory further emphasized that:” A document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in law. As held in the cases examined, the document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious…”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

WRONGFUL ADMITTAL OF EVIDENCE MUST LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

The law is equally well settled that where inadmissible evidence is admitted, it behooves the trial Court to expunge such evidence from the record and consider if there is any viable evidence upon which the charge could be sustained. In essence, the wrongful admission of an evidence ought not to totally affect the decision of the Court unless the use of such evidence has resulted in occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

– Saulawa, JSC. Makanjuola v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

UNSIGNED DOCUMENT IS A WORTHLESS PIECE OF PAPER

In the case of Uzokwelu v. PDP & Ors [2018] LPELR- 43737CA, The law is settled that an unsigned document is a worthless paper. It is inadmissible and where admitted, it cannot be relied upon by the Court to resolve any controversy between the parties as no weight or probative value can be attached to an unsigned document.

Was this dictum helpful?

IN DETERMINING ADMISSIBILITY, IT IS RELEVANCY THAT MATTERS NOT CUSTODY

Admissibility is a rule of evidence and it is based on relevancy. See Sadau v. The State (1968) 1 All NLR 124: Ogonzee v. State (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 566. In determining the admissibility of evidence, the court will not consider how it was obtained; rather the court will take into consideration whether what is admitted is relevant to the issues being tried. See Igbinovia v. The State (1981) 2 SC 5. In Elias v. Disu (1962) 1 SCNLR 361, (1962) 1 All NLR 214, this court held that in determining admissibility of evidence, “it is the relevancy of the evidence that is important and not how the evidence was obtained.”

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

Was this dictum helpful?

ADMISSIBILITY IS BASED ON RELEVANCE; HOW OBTAINED IS IMMATERIAL

Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v. The Queen (1955) A.C. 197 at p.203, observed. “In their Lordships’ opinion the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matter in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence is obtained. While this proposition may not have been stated in so many words in any English case, there are decisions which support it, and in their Lordships’ opinion it is plainly right in principle. There can be no difference in principle for this purpose between a civil and a criminal case. No doubt in a criminal case a judge always has a discretion to disallow evidence if the strict rule of admissibility would operate unfairly against an accused.”

Was this dictum helpful?

PROCESS SIGNED BY A FIRM OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS IS NOT VALID IN LAW

The said section 573(1) of Companies and Allied Matters Act Provides as follows:- ‘Every individual firm or corporation having a place of business in Nigeria and carrying on business under a business name shall be registered in the manner provided in this part of this Act The above is not an authority that can be relied upon to uphold the view that a process signed and filed by a firm of legal practitioners which has no live is valid in law. The general provision of the law as in section 573(1) of Companies and Allied Matters Act is subject to the specific provisions of section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act. See: FMBN v. Olloh (2002) 4 SC (Pt. 11) 177 at 122-123; Kraps Thompson Org.v. NIPSS (2004) 5 SC (Pt.1) 16 at 20-21.

— J.A. Fabiyi, JSC. FBN v. Maiwada (2012) – SC.269/2005

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

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 349 | UO – 1 | GO – 273 | BO – 75

External link(s)

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