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!

WHEN IS A DOCUMENT DEEMED TO BE PROPERLY FILED BEFORE THE COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

I am aware and this is also settled that a document or process of court, is deemed duly filed, when a paper or the document or process is brought to the Registry, and is assessed and paid for, that such a document, etc, can be said to be filed in law, except where there is a dispensation under the Rules of court that the document etc, can be filed without payment. Of course, this will be a question of fact if fees are paid in respect of a document brought to the court. See the case of Dike v. Okorie (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt.161) 418 @ 428-429 C.A. citing the case of Government or Imo State v. Orisakwe FCA/109/82 of 2/7/85. It was also held that a document is deemed to have been properly filed in court, when same is deposited in a court’s office with the proper court officer assigned with the responsibility. See the case of Mohammed v. Musawa (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 11) 89.

— F. Ogbuagu, JSC. Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) – SC.247/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

document

OBJECTION TO SPECIFIED DOCUMENT

An objection to one specified document cannot be taken as an objection to another document bearing a totally different date. – Obaseki, JSC. Obiora v. Osele (1989) – SC.70/1987

Was this dictum helpful?

READING TWO DOCUMENTS TOGETHER

In Burgess v. Cox (1951) Ch. 383 Harman, J., (as he then was), found that he could read two documents together to remedy the deficiency of the defendant’s signature lacking in the first document relied on as being a memorandum when it was obvious that if the two documents were placed side by side, they referred to the same transaction.

Was this dictum helpful?

THERE NEED NOT BE REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENT TO CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT MEMORANDUM

Timmins v. Moreland Street Property Co. Ltd. (1958) Ch. 110 which shows the relaxation of the earlier rules and that there need not be a specific or express reference from one document to the other document in order to constitute a memorandum required under the Statute of Frauds as is sufficient if by necessary implication there should be reference from one to the other. Jenkins L.J., (as he then was), said at page 130: “The rule has no doubt been considerably relaxed since Peirce v. Corf LR. 9 QB. 210 was decided in 1874, but I think it is still indispensably necessary, in order to justify the reading of documents together for this purpose, that there should be a document signed by the party to be charged, which, while not containing in itself all the necessary ingredients of the required memorandum, does contain some reference, express or implied, to some other document or transaction. Where any such reference can be spelt out of a document so signed, then parol evidence may be given to identify the other document referred to, or, as the case may be, to explain the other transaction, and to identify any document relating to it. If by this process a document is brought to light which contains in writing all the terms of the bargain so far as not contained in the document signed by the party to be charged, then the two documents can be read together so as to constitute a sufficient memorandum for the purpose of Section 40.”

Was this dictum helpful?

WEIGHT CANNOT BE PLACED ON A DOCUMENT TENDERED BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT IN A POSITION TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THE DOCUMENT

Weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot be in a position to answer questions on the document. One such person the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the contents of the document. Although section 91(2) allows him to tender the document, the subsection does not deal with the issue of weight, which is dealt with in section 92. Weight in section 92 means weight of evidence, which is the balance or preponderance of evidence; the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the issue rather than the other. (See Black’s Law Dictionary (6ed) page 1594). In view of the fact that cross-examination plays a vital role in the determination of the weight to be attached to a document under section 92, and a person who did not make the document is not in a position to answer questions on it. I see the point made by the Court of Appeal.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008

Was this dictum helpful?

EXCEPTION TO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEING TENDERED BY THE MAKER

The general rule as to who can tender documentary evidence is that documentary evidence should be tendered through its maker. This is because the maker of such documents can validly answer the questions put forward with regards to the documents so his attendance may be necessary to facilitate cross-examination. See Section 91 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also the cases of Statoil Nig. Ltd v. Inducon Nig. Ltd [2014] 9 NWLR (Pt 1411) (P. 94, Paras, A-B). It is not however, at all times that documentary evidence must be tendered by the maker, as the person to whom it is made can also produce it in Court. If it can be shown to the Court by the person seeking to tender same that the maker of the document is dead or unfit by reason of his body or mental condition; that the presence of the maker of the document may also be excused if he is overseas or if it is not reasonably practicable to call him to tender the document in view of attendant expense.

— O. Oyewumi, J. Aseidu v Japaul (2019) – NICN/AK/01/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

ORAL EVIDENCE CANNOT CONTRADICT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Can this evidence pass for its content of oral agreement of a yearly tenancy to vitiate the termination of the lease in 1980? Can the bare ipse dixit of a witness of the existence of oral evidence turn around in his favour in the face of clear documentary evidence to the contrary? I have a few more questions to ask but I can stop here.

– Tobi JSC. Odutola v. Papersack (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.