Download PDF
Hearing commenced in this matter on the 7th day of October 2013. The Claimant Mr. Smart Ugbonta (CWI) testified on Oath and adopted his written depositions on Oath. Counsel to the Claimant Mr. Chukwuezi led the witness (CWI) the Claimant himself to tender the documents listed as 1-21 in the Claimant’s list of documents. There was no objection to the tendering of documents 1-5 and 10 – 21. They were therefore admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits C1 – C5 and C10 – C21 respectively. The Defendant’s counsel Mr. Mere however objected to the tendering of the documents listed as 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the Claimant’s list of documents when the Claimant sought to tender same as evidence. His objection was on the ground that the witness is not the maker of the document, and that no foundation was laid for the admissibility of the documents which he is not the maker. He also stated that the said documents, being medical reports, were of a specialized nature, being expert opinions. He said that the appropriate thing to do is to bring the makers of the documents so that they can be cross-examined. He said that admitting the documents without the makers would amount to denying the Defendant’s right to fair hearing. Responding, Mr. Chukwuezi, counsel to the Claimant submitted that the cardinal principle for admissibility of documents is that the document must be pleaded and it must be relevant to the subject matter of the suit. He relied on the authority of Okoye Vs. Obiaso (2010) 3 MJSC Pt. 2 Pg. 1 at Pg. 18 and submitted that the documents were given to the Claimant by the makers of the documents. He said there is no law that says that such a document cannot be tendered through the Claimant. Counsel also submitted that he pleaded the documents in his claim, and that the Defendants also pleaded the said documents in paragraph 7 of their Statement of Defence. He said that the Defendant having pleaded the same document, cannot turn around to oppose the admissibility of the same documents. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Nwanji Vs. Coastal Services Nig. Ltd. (2004) 3 WRN Pg. 1 at Pg. 10. Where the Plaintiff and the Defendant pleaded the same document, and the Defendant objected to the tendering of the document by the Plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the document ought to be admitted since they both pleaded the same document. Counsel further submitted that the documents sought to be pleaded are relevant to these proceedings. Replying on points of law, Counsel to the Defendant submitted that the Okoye Vs. Obiaso case would not be applicable in this instance, as the documents referred to in that case was an arbitration report while the case before us refers to medical reports. I have carefully considered the submission of both counsel, and I have taken a critical look at the documents in question. In my view, the main issues for determination in determining the admissibility of the documents, are, whether they are relevant to the suit and whether they are produced from proper custody. The Claimant’s counsel his stated that the Claimant was given the said documents by the makers thereof. This fact has not been controverted by the Defendant Counsel. In the case of Keystone Bank Ltd. Vs. A.O.S. Practice (2013) LPELR 20357, The Court of Appeal held that it is a trite principle that with particular regard to private documents, it lies within the unfettered discretionary power of the court to decide whether or not a document has been produced from proper custody. In my view, the documents in question being: (1) A photocopy of a referral letter referring the Claimant to six – C Specialist Hospital, (2) A photocopy of the Claimant’s laboratory test result. (3) A medical report emanating from six-C Specialist Clinics in respect of the Claimant; and (4) A medical report from North Central Bronx Hospital Urology Clinic, New York, USA, in respect of the Claimant, Being documents of which the Claimant is the subject matter, are properly in his custody, and are therefore produced from proper custody. On the point made by learned counsel to the Defendant that the documents sought to be admitted are medical reports of an expert nature, I rely on the authority of Emmanuel Audu Vs. The State (2002) LPELR – 7098 CA. In that case, the Court of Appeal made reference to the case of Yahaya Idrisi Vs. The State (1967) 1 All NLR 12 where it was held that where a medical practitioner is not a witness, his written report can, at the discretion of the court, be admitted in evidence, provided there is no objection by the Defence that the report bore the signature of somebody other than that of the medical practitioner. In the case before me, the Defendant’s counsel has not made any allusion to the fact that the documents sought to be tendered were not signed by the makers. I am therefore inclined to admit the documents in evidence, as they are relevant to the case of the Claimant. It is at the court’s discretion to determine the probative value to be attached to document tendered before it. This can however only be determined when the totality of the evidence is before the court. See the case of Ambo Wuyah Vs. Jama’a Local Govt. Kafanchan (2011) LPELR 9078 (C.A) I therefore admit the documents No: 6, 7, 8 and 9 which the Claimant seeks to tender in evidence in this case. Consequently, the documents are hereby admitted as evidence and marked as Exhibits C6, C7, C8 and C9 respectively. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O.Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge