Download PDF
RULING. 1. In the course of giving evidence in chief certain documents were sought to be tendered in evidence through DW1. The documents include those that are in form of table with rows and column and names of people, termed as attendance register. The other documents include clearance forms, letter to Permanent Secretary Bureau of Public Service Reforms, certificates of participation at Seminar for Assistance for pre-retirement, and Retirees pay Slips from the office of Accountant General of the Federation. 2. Joseph Ilorah, Esq; counsel for the claimants vehemently objected to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered in evidence through DW1. On the attendance register counsel contended there is nothing like attendance register pleaded or frontloaded and nothing shows that the document emanated from the defendant. Counsel argued on its face is a concoction. 3. On the letter dated 12/9/2011, counsel contended that the document has nothing like letter head or address of the maker to qualify as a letter. It cannot be said from where it is coming from. Furthermore, the letter is a forwarding letter but what it purport to forward was not attached also being public document it was not properly certified. There was also nothing to show it was written by the defendant. Counsel urged the court to reject it. 4. On certificates of participation at pre-retirement seminar. Counsel for the claimants contended that the issue is not whether they were retired. Also the so called certificate of Hambali Jimoh is unknown to the claimants. It was also argued that no foundation has been laid as to where the originals are. 5. On retirement severance pay slips, which were said to have come from the Accountant General Office. As photocopies, they were not certified by any one. They are unknown to the claimants. No proper certification and there are many unknown names and there are mutilations. It was also argued that the documents were computer generated have not satisfied conditions for admissibility of computer generated document. 6. On clearance forms, counsel posited that the witness said there is signature on the forms but we cannot see signature. Being public document they were not properly certified. There is no evidence of payment no endorsement from the pleading. It was after disengagement that they were issued from 3/2/2006 to 31/12/2006. They are not originals, no proper foundation laid for admissibility. Counsel urged the court to reject the documents. 7. In response to the objection to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered in evidence, counsel for the defendant submitted that on register the witness has testified that she is in the cleaning department of the defendant and cleaners sign register when they report on duty and when closing. It was submitted by counsel that by section 4 of evidence Act, relevancy is key to admissibility, and facts connected with relevant facts are admissible. On letter of 12/9/2011, the document was duly acknowledged. 8. On certificates of participation, it is a pre-retirement for disengaged officers. As shown on the document. On pay slips they were sent to claimant after the claimant and all those affected were duly paid their entitlement. On the objection to clearance forms, the clearance forms were duly signed by the claimants, thus why they were cleared as shown on the document. 9. On admissibility of public document, Counsel contended while relying on Dr. David O. O. Okoye v Christopher & Ors. (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) and submitted admissibility is governed by relevancy, the documents sought to be tendered are relevant to the case at hand. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the objection raised by the claimants counsel. 10. In reply counsel for the claimants contended that there is acknowledgement of the letter to Perm Sec. the witness being official witness cannot tender document from any organization, it is only document by the defendant that can be tendered and not any other document. Counsel also talk of comparing signature will only arise where there are two signatures in the case. Counsel contended the entire document sought to be tendered are not admissible. Counsel urged the court to reject all the documents. DECISION 11. I have carefully and painstakingly considered the documents sought to be tendered in evidence and the oral submission of counsel for and against the admissibility of the documents in question. 12. I will start consideration of the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered in evidence with attendance register, Dw1 in her testimony has informed this court that she is in the cleaning Department of the defendant and that Information Technology was engaged to provide cleaning services and there is a register kept where the cleaners sign when they report for duty and sign when they close for duty. She identifies the said purported register. The counsel for the claimants objects to the admissibility of the document on the ground that there is nothing to indicate from where the document is coming. 13. A careful perusal of the documents will show that it contained names of people in a table form consisting of rows and column. On top of the documents can be found a written description as: ZONE A, HOSTEL C&D, ZONE B and ZONE C. The documents purports to be certified true copies of the originals. What is clear from this document is the fact that it cannot be ascertained to be a Register for attendance. There is nothing to show that it is a register of cleaners kept by the defendant. In view of this finding it will be unsafe to admit this document as attendance register kept by the defendant. There was nothing on the document to shows whose document it is or where it is coming from. It has no maker. In the circumstances the said document sought to be tendered in evidence as attendance register is hereby rejected same is marked tendered and rejected. It is equally to be noted that the document was not pleaded nor was it frontloaded as required by the rules of court. 14. Counsel for the claimants’ objection of clearance form was to the effect that they were not properly certified, no evidence of payment for certification, they are not original and no foundation has been laid for the admissibility of the document. 15. Vide paragraphs 5 and 8 of the amended statement of defence, the defendant has pleaded the clearance forms. A hard look at the clearance forms will reveal that item number 6 is provision made for signature and date and the forms were duly signed and dated. I have also examined the witness statement on oath of the witnesses who testified and found the signature of the witness statement on oath to be the same with signature on the clearance forms for the witnesses. For There is no disputing the facts that the documents are public documents that in the absence of original certified true copies must be tendered. There is on the documents evidence to show that there is certification but not properly made in line with section 104 of the evidence Act. However, taking into consideration the fact that an attempt has been made to certify the document I shall in the interest of justice pursuant to section 12(2) (b) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 admit the clearance form in evidence. The clearance forms are hereby admitted in evidence as a bundle and accordingly, marked as exhibit DWB1-12. 16. The objection of counsel for the claimants on the admissibility of pay slips is that they were public documents emanating from the office of the Accountant General of the Federation; the documents cannot be tendered by DW1 who is a staff of the defendant and not staff of the office of the Accountant General of the Federation. Counsel also argued that the account numbers for the Bank has not been stated. The defendant has vide paragraph 7 of the amended statement of defence pleaded the pay slips. It was in evidence that these pay slips were sent to the defendant from the accountant General of the federation, this means that the defendant is in possession of the original. In view of the fact that the defendant being in possession of these documents, they can be tendered by an officer of the defendant. The documents having been pleaded and being relevant to the proceedings at hand are admissible. in Lawal V Hon. Commissioner For lands Housing & Survey Oyo State (2013) LPELR-21114(CA), objection was raised to admissibility of document on the ground that the witness is not maker and the document did not come from proper custody, the objection was overruled. The court held that no custody is improper if it is proved to have a legitimate origin. In the case at hand it has been proved that the document sought to be tendered has legitimate origin. Furthermore, the defendant is an artificial person it can act only through agents and DW1 is an agent of the defendant has locus to tender the exhibit sought to be tendered in evidence. In the circumstance I overruled the objection of the claimants to the admissibility of these documents. 17. In the interest of justice the said document are hereby pursuant to section 12 (1) (b) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. The bundle of pay slips are hereby admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit DW1C1-74. 18. The objection of letter of 12/9/2011, is that it is not on letter head paper of the 2nd defendant. The letter was pleaded in paragraph 13 of the amended statement of defence. I shall admit it on the ground that it is relevant and in the interest of justice. There is no law that says a letter must be on letter head paper before it can be admitted in evidence. The said letter is hereby admitted and marked as exhibit DW1D. 19. For the certificate of participation at pre-retirement workshop, these documents were pleaded in paragraph 14 of the statement of defence. These documents were issued to the defendants and notice was given to them to produce the original at the trial but failed and neglected to do so. In the circumstance hereby admit them in evidence as exhibit DW1E1-5. It is to be noted that these documents belonged to the claimants being private documents it is the original that is admissible but having put the claimants to produce same and the claimants failing to produce the defendant is entitled to have photocopies admitted in evidence as I have just done. See Buhari V Obasanjo ((2005) 7 SCNJ 1 @ 52, where it was held where notice to produce is served on party and fail to produce same, the document which is at its disposal. party giving oral evidence is entitled to rely on copies. 20. Before I end this ruling I would like to state that there is a world of difference between admissibility and weight to be attached to document admitted in evidence. The mere fact that a document has been admitted in evidence does not mean that the court will automatically take such evidence and accord it evidential value. The aportitioning of evidential value will depend on what the court finds when evaluating the evidence. This means that a document admitted at trial may be discountenanced by the court while writing judgment. In considering admissibility of a document and the weight to be attached to the document, different principles of law are applicable to the consideration of each case. Whereas the weight to be attached to a document deals with the probative effect of that document, admissibility deals with the power the court has to receive the document in evidence. See Olowolaramo v. Umechukwu (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 537. 21. In view of the foregoing apart from the purported attendance register which I have rejected all the other documents are hereby admitted in evidence and marked accordingly. 22. Ruling entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: Joseph O. Ilorah, Esq; for the Claimants appearing with Vivian Akowe, Esq; and Joy Asije, Esq; A. A. Abogede, Esq; for the Defendants appearing with Sanusi Sanusi Dakat,