Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE DATE: AUGUST 2, 2012 SUIT NO. NICN/LA/112/2011 BETWEEN Mr. Louis Nwadiashi. - Claimant AND Hyperdist Nigeria Limited - Defendant REPRESENTATION AbdulFatai Alao-Thomas, with him Peter Njoku, Julius Ajibulu for Claimant. B. S. Adebayo for Defendant. RULING At the commencement of examination in Chief of the claimant, he adopted his witness statement on oath as his evidence in this matter and stated that he was relying on all the documents he frontloaded in support of his case. Learned counsel to the claimant then sought to tender the originals of the documents frontloaded through the claimant. At this juncture, learned counsel to the defendant raised an objection to the admissibility of the following documents: (i) Statement layout on the grounds that the document does not have a maker known to law as provided by section 83(1) of the Evidence Act. He cited Kwara Investment Ltd v Garuba [2000] NWLR (Pt 673) 474 at 478, Omorinbola (No. 2) v Milad Ondo State [1995] 9 NWLR (Pt 418) 201 at 222. (ii) Letter dated February 3, 2005 for being unsigned. (iii) Four electronic mails from the defendant and one Salil on the basis that the provisions of section 84(2) of the Evidence Act have not been met. He referred to Sarkar Law of Evidence (India) 16th Edition, Vol. 1, 1235 to 1238. (iv) Letter dated 2nd February which is a photocopy and the photocopy of a cheque as no foundation has been laid for the admissibility of the secondary evidence. He then urged the court to mark the documents tendered but rejected. In reaction, learned counsel to the claimant referred to the pleadings and witness statement on oath and stated that the defendants was given notice to produce all the originals which he refused to do and he simply wants the claimant to be shut out by his objection. He submitted that the documents sought to be tendered are relevant and that section 83 of the Evidence Act is on all fours with this case. He stated that the claimant is the maker of the documents. He referred to section 84(a) of the Evidence Act and stated that the emails came from the claimants computer. He submitted that the Indian Law on Evidence is not applicable. He urged the court to admit all the documents in support of the claimants case. In response, the defendants counsel submitted that Rules of court cannot and do not override the provisions of the Evidence Act. Having listened to counsel to both parties, it is pertinent to state that at the stage of preliminaries, the court made it clear that the practice of this court is that all frontloaded documents are deemed admitted unless specifically objected to in which event the court will rule on the objection. Once deemed admitted, counsel is to address the court on the weight or probative value that should be attached to the document in final address. All of this is made possible given that this court is enjoined to be flexible and less formal. While the court is enjoined to apply the rules of evidence, it may depart from it in the interest of justice and may regulate its procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit. See sections 12 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. The position adopted by this court is succinctly captured by the instructive and incisive holding of the Supreme Court of India in NTF Mills Ltd v The 2nd Punjab Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 329 to the effect that: “The Industrial Courts are to adjudicate on the disputes between employers and their workmen, etc. and in the course of such adjudication they must determine the ‘rights’ and ‘wrong’ of the claim made, and in so doing they are undoubtedly free to apply the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, keeping in view the further principle that their jurisdiction is invoked not for the enforcement of mere contractual rights but for preventing labour practices regarded as unfair and for restoring industrial peace on the basis of collective bargaining. The process does not cease to be judicial by reason of that elasticity or by reason of the application of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.” In this regard therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice at this stage of the proceedings to reject the documents being objected to as the court has not had the opportunity to subject the documents to scrutiny and evaluation and in the process of scrutiny be rejected if there is a reason to do so. The defendant’s counsel may cross examine the witness in respect of the documents at the stage of cross examination if he so wishes. For the reasons given above, the objection is over ruled. The documents are deemed admitted and counsel to the defendant may address the court in final address stage on the probative value or weight to be attached to the documents being objected to. Ruling is entered accordingly. ……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae