Download PDF
Hearing commenced in this case on the 10th day of October 2013. The first Claimant Oguguo Sylvaline I. (CWI) testified on oath and adopted her written depositions on oath. Learned silk O.A. Obianwu SAN, Leading the witness, sought to tender a bundle of 399 documents in evidence in the case. The said documents which had been frontloaded and filed along with the complaint, consisted of various classifications of documents pertaining to the 43 Claimants as represented in the testimony of CWI. Learned silk applied pursuant to order 19 Rule 12(4) of NICR, to put them in as a bundle of documents. Learned counsel for the Defendants E.O.Onyema esq. raised an objection to the admissibility of the documents as a bundle of documents, on the basis that different rules may apply to the admissibility or otherwise, of each of the documents in question. Counsel proceeded to state that he is indeed objecting to the admissibility of some of the documents sought to be tendered. He submitted that with respect to computer generated documents, their admissibility is governed by Section 84(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. At this point, the court asked the Defendant’s Counsel to submit a written address detailing his objection to admissibility of the documents he wishes to object to, and that Claimant’s counsel can then reply verbally so that the case can proceed to hearing. In the written address filed by the Defendant’s counsel Mr. Onyema, learned counsel proposed that in view of the fact that the documents sought to be tendered are many and varied, and therefore subject to different rules of admissibility, he would group related documents under one category, and address the court on the documents, category by category, as follows:- (a) Application Acknowledgement slips (b) Examination acknowledgment slips (c) Online job application forms (d) Computer generated statement of Accounts He submitted that the documents ex-facie show that they are neither hand written nor type written, nor signed by any persons as the maker. They are clearly print-outs from the computer. He submitted that from the provisions of Section 84 (1), (2) and (4) of the Evidence Act, even though documents produced by a computer have been made admissible under the Evidence Act, these document belong to the category of documents which are admissible only upon fulfillment of stipulated statutory conditions. He referred the court to the case of Anyaebosi Vs. R.T. Briscoe Nig. Ltd. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 59) 84 at 108. He submitted that no proper foundation had been laid for the tendering of the documents, except the written deposition on oath of CWI, which she adopted as her evidence; and that there is nothing contained there in which makes even the faintest reference to the conditions stipulated under Section 84 (1) and (2) of the evidence act. Also, no certificate has been produced in compliance with Section 84 (4) of Evidence Act. He relied on the Supreme Court case of Shanu Vs. Afribank Ltd Plc (2003) FWLR (Pt 136) 823 where such documents were held to be inadmissible. Counsel restated Niki Tobi JSC’s remarks in Araka Vs. Egbue (2003) 11 LRCN 1844 at 1862 that the conditions stipulated by law to ensure the authenticity of documents are strictly enforced because in this age of sophisticated technology, documents can be manipulated and produced before the court as authentic, to the prejudice of the course of Justice. He therefore urged the court to reject all the documents produced by computer, which are sought to be tendered by the Claimants as inadmissible, and have them so marked. With respect to the documents which counsel classified as the various statements of accounts produced in respect of the Claimants by their respective Banks, counsel submitted that these documents fall into the category of documents classified as “Bankers, Books” as defined under Section 258 of the Evidence Act 2011, therefore, the statements contained therein come under Section 89(h) of the Evidence Act:- Counsel referred court to the case of Federal Republic of Nig. Vs. Femi Fanikayode (2010) All FWLR (Pt 524) 181 at 191 He referred also to Section 90(1) (e) (i) – (v) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides that such books cannot be received unless proved; and such proof must be given by some person who has examined the copy with the original entry and may be given orally or by affidavit. He said the only evidence before the court is the evidence of CWI, which has not fulfilled the provisions of Section 90 (1) (e) (i) – (v) of the Evidence Act 2011 in relation to admissibility of the documents. He urged court to hold that the documents are inadmissible. The 3rd classification of documents which the Defendant’s counsel objected to, are the various official documents, letters and communications claimed to be issued by diverse public officers in relation to the Claimants alleged employment. Counsel classified these documents as public documents which he said can only be admitted if they are original or certified true copies. On this point, he referred the court to Section 102, 89(e) and 90(i) © of the Evidence Act 2011 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Araka Vs. Egbue (2003) 111 LRCN 1844. On the 4th and last classification of documents by counsel, being private letters, receipts and other personal documents relied upon by the Claimants, counsel referred court to the provisions of Section 88 of the Evidence Act 2011, that documents must be proved by primary evidence. He stated that before any photocopy of any private document can be tendered as secondary evidence, foundation must be laid else, the document will be inadmissible Fashi Vs. Ogunkayode (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 283) 116 at 131. In conclusion, counsel urged court to reject all such documents sought to be tendered by the Claimants, which do not meet the requirements of the law on admissibility as enumerated above, and to have such documents so marked as rejected. Responding, Obianwu SAN urged the court to overrule the objection of learned counsel to the Defendants. Learned silk submitted that the documents sought to be tendered are relevant to the issues thrown up by this case. Relying on the authority of Madaki Vs. Nig. Army (2008) All FWLR Pt. 420 pg. 603, once the court arrives at a conclusion that documents are relevant, then automatically they become admissible. Counsel further submitted that there is no argument before the court that the documents are not relevant. The documents were frontloaded and served on the Defendants, it is therefore belated to raise objection at this stage. As to whether or not some of the documents are computer generated, learned silk submitted that it is a question of fact, which must be specifically pleaded. Having not been pleaded, the court cannot speculate on the issue as submission of counsel do not constitute evidence. Paragraph 3. 02 of the Defendant’s written address, counsel stated, is a mere speculation bereft of any form of evidence, therefore not a fact that the court can take judicial notice of. As regards the objection on the basis of some of the documents being Bankers’ Books, counsel submitted that the Bank Statements being tendered are original documents. i.e. what they received from their various banks, showing the Res of their claim. He relied on the case of Ajide Vs. Kelani (1985) 11 SC 124 at 143. He further pointed out the absurdity in asking the Claimants (43 of them) to call their bankers to each tender their bank statements. As regards the objection that some of the documents are public documents, counsel stated that the documents being relied upon are original copies of communication from the Defendants to the Claimants; therefore, this ground of objection has no merit. Counsel went further to submit that the court has a discretion on it’s application of the provisions of the Evidence Act, by the provision of Section 12 of NICA 2006, which has been given constitutional validity by virtue of the provision of Section 243 and 254 of the Amended Constitution. He urged court to apply section 12 of NICA since it had not been shown that any prejudice will be caused to the Defendants if admitted. He further urged court to overrule each and every ground of objection. Replying on points of law, Defendant’s counsel submitted that section 12 of NICA 2006 does not make the Evidence Act inapplicable to this court, neither does it give court the discretion to decide whether or not to follow the evidence act. I have carefully considered the arguments of both counsel on the issue of admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered. It is worthy of note here, that the documents sought to be tendered are a total of 399 documents of various and varying nature, all in relation to the 43 Claimants in this case. I have therefore ordered that the Claimant’s counsel re-classifies the documents by type and nature, for ease of reference. Having said that, I find it necessary to touch on the learned silk’s application that the documents be admitted as a bundle of documents. This application is refused, in view of the basic fact that the 399 documents sought to be tendered are of various and varying type and nature. The documents cannot therefore be admitted as a bundle as requested by Claimant’s counsel. Rather, the documents will be considered for admissibility, category by category. In compliance with the order of court, the Claimant’s counsel has classified the documents by categories as follows:- 1. Application acknowledgement slips of all the Claimants except the 11th and 35th. 2. Examination score slips of all the Claimants. 3. Bank Teller evidencing Imo State tax of N1,000 (One thousand Naira) of all the Claimants except 4th, 5th, 23rd and 32nd . 4. Appointment letters of all the Claimants. 5. Gen 69 (offer of appointment to pensionable establishment) of all the Claimants 6. Gen 69C (Notification of appointment) of all the Claimants. 7. Medical Certificate of fitness of all the Claimants (originals are in the Custody of the 3rd Defendant’s Ministry). 8. Posting/Deployment letters of all the Claimants 9. Letters from the 3rd Defendant’s ministry acknowledging payment of salaries for all the Claimants except 3rd, 22nd, 27th, 36th, 37th and 40th . 10. Bank statements of all the Claimants except 4th, 11th, 23rd, 30th and 36th Claimants. 11. Letter to the 3rd Defendant by Claimant’s Counsel and the Reply by the 3rd Defendant. 12. Letters requesting for salaries by all the Claimants. 13. Announcer express newspapers. I have carefully considered the submissions of counsel on both sides, and also considered the issues for determination as raised by the Defendant’s Counsel. With regards to the documents listed as 3.01 (a) and (b) of his written address, counsel’s submission is that the said documents ex-facie show that they are neither hand written nor type written nor signed by any person as the maker .They are clearly printouts from the computer. Claimant’s counsel, on this point submitted that this issue is a question of fact, which requires proof by evidence. He said that it is a mere speculation, which the Defendant’s counsel has not shown that the court can take judicial notice of. Defendant’s counsel neither pleaded the fact that the said documents were computer generated, nor gave any further clarification to his statement that the documents are print outs from the computer.. For purposes of clarification the documents falling within this category as listed by Defendant’s counsel are:- 1. Application acknowledgement slips 2. Examination acknowledgement slips 3. Online job application form 4. Computer generated Statements of Accounts. The documents listed as 1-3 above, having been grouped together and of similar nature, will be taken as the same type of document. A cursory look at them show that they originate from the Imo State Government Job application portal. The issue therefore should not be whether or not they were generated from a computer, but whether or not such a portal exists or ever existed. No reference was made to these details in the Statement of Defence. The contents of the said forms were also not disputed. The only objection is that they are computer generated, which is an assertion that requires more light than just a statement. I say this because the documents in question contained the details and photographs of the Claimants. They have a bearing to the Claimant’s cause of action. Even if I were to conclude that they are ex-facie computer generated, I would still align myself with the decision of Iguh JSC in Unity Life and Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. IBWA 2001 (7NWLR) pt 713 pg. 610 at 615 (which the Defendant’s counsel cited) and I hold that in the absence of any issue having been joined on the question of the accuracy or correctness or even the existence of the documents in issue, the court may reasonably presume that they originate from the website of the Defendant, and they were made in the ordinary course of job application process. An objection such as this ought to be pleaded by the Defendant, since the said documents were pleaded by the Claimants as the basis for their cause of Action. Unenforceability of a document must always be pleaded, and where a party fails to plead the facts which render a document unenforceable against him, it is not open to court to consider them. In this case, the Defendant counsel’s mere assertion that the documents are computer generated and therefore inadmissible, will not sustain his objection, as he has not given any further facts why the court will conclude that Section 84 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act has not been complied with, or indeed, whether the said documents fall under the ambit of Section 84. See the case of Barclays Bank DCO vs. Memuna Hassan (1961) All NLR 865 at 866. As regards the computer generated statements of accounts, I have taken a look at all the statements, and they all bear the stamps of the various banks. Relying on the earlier authorities cited, I am inclined to believe that the said statements, having been stamped by the various banks, has acquired a form of authenticity to make them admissible. Especially, as the purpose of tendering them is to establish that payments were made to the Claimant at one point or the other. Without this piece of evidence before the court, it will be impossible for the court to view the case in all it’s entirety. On the issue of whether the tendered Statements of Account are Banker’s books as defined under Section 259 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, for clarity, Section 258 (1) of the Evidence Act defines “bank” and “banker” to mean a bank licensed under the Banks and other Financial Institutions Act Cap B 3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and includes anybody authorized under an enactment to carry on banking business. In my view, this subsection does not relate to the issue in question. It is Section 258 (2) that defines banker’s books, to include ledgers, day books, cash books, account books and all other books used in banking business. Counsel further submitted on this point that by the provisions of section 90 (1) (e) (i) – (v) of the Evidence Act 2011 copies of entries in a banker’s book cannot be received as evidence unless certain facts are proved. Even if this court were to hold that the said Statements of Acountt fall into the category of documents covered by section 90, I am inclined to rely on the earlier authority of Unity Life and Fire Insurance Co. (Supra) that the statements of accounts were produced in the ordinary course of banking business. As regards the calling of bank officials to tender the said statements, my take on this is that from the authority of Magaji vs Nigerian Army (2008) 8 NWLR (pt 1089) pg 338 at pg 358, the court may dispense with the personal appearance of a person who recorded a document, if the only purpose for calling him is to tender the said document. In the instant case, there are 43 statements of accounts (less those of 4th, 11th, 23rd, 30th and 36th Claimant). Are the Claimants to produce officers from each bank to tender statements emanating from their respective banks? My answer to this is No. It would have defeated the essence of frontloading and speedy dispensation of Justice if such long cumbersome procedures are not dispensed with. Besides, the various bank stamps appended on each respective statement of account, to my mind, has given the said statement a form of authenticity as having emanated from the bank. The source is not in dispute, neither is the content in dispute. With respect to the various official documents, letters, and communications claimed to be issued by diverse public officers in relation to the Claimant’s alleged employment, the Defendant’s case is that they are public documents, and only originals or certified time copies can be admitted. A look at the documents listed here reveals that not all of them are public documents. In this category, all the documents tendered are original copies, except copies where receipt has been duly acknowledged by the receiving parties stamp and signature and circulars where Claimants’ names appeared. On admissibility of photocopies, I rely on the authority of Nwanji vs. Coastal Services Nig. Ltd. (2004) 11 NWLR pt 552 at 554 where the Supreme Court held that a photocopy is admissible, especially when the opposing party does not suggest that the contents are different from the original. Even so, the Supreme Court held, it would be up to the opponent to tender the original to contradict the photocopy if he feels the photocopy is at variance with the original. At this juncture, I wish to draw counsel’s attention to the provision of section 12 of the NIC Act 2006, which Claimant’s counsel has rightly referred to as having constitutional validity, in the light of the provisions of section 243 and 254 of the Amended Constitution. The case of Abia State University vs. Anyaibe (1996) 3 NWLR pt. 435 pg 646 at 650 – 651, is clear on this point. Katsina – Alu JCA as he then was, Stated in clear terms that rules which are made under the powers conferred by the constitution have the same force as the constitution. He stated that where a statute which has provided a right also provides a remedy, the remedy provided by the statute must be resorted to. It is in the light of the above that I hold that, irrespective of the fact that I have carefully considered the tenacity or otherwise of the objections of learned counsel for the Defendants with regard to admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered, the law still allows me to depart from the evidence law in the interest of Justice. For clarity, Section 12 (2) (a) (b) of NICA 2006 states that subject to this Act and any rules made there under, the court :- (a) May regulate its procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit, and (b) Shall be bound by the Evidence Act but may depart from it in the interest of Justice In the recent case of Dr. Atonte Diete – Spiff vs. Governor of Bayelsa State and 1 or, Suit No. NICN/CA/31/2012 (Unreported) His Lordship Justice B.B Kanyip stated in clear terms that courts are enjoined to be in control of their courts. And as regards this court, the guiding norms are flexibility, informality and Justice. See section 12 of NICA 2006. See also the case of Kurt Severinsen vs. Emerging Telecommunication Services Ltd. (2012) 27 NLLR (pt 78) pg 374 where the court made it clear that the practice in the NIC is that all frontloaded documents are deemed admitted unless specifically objected to, in which event, the court will then make a ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the documents. Once deemed admitted, all that is left is the weight or probative value that will be placed on them by the court. All of this is made possible given that this court is generally enjoined to be flexible and less formal, and while it is enjoined to apply the rules of evidence, it may depart from it in the interest of Justice.In this regard, this court for instance admits secondary evidence of documents not necessarily the primary evidence where there is no dispute regarding the authenticity. The court is not unmindful of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shanu vs. Afribank Nigerian Plc. (2003) FWLR pt 136 pg 823 where the Supreme Court held that the admissibility of a document or a piece of oral evidence may be contested by the parties, and the trial Judge will normally rule on it. If in his ruling, he admits the oral or documentary evidence, he may at the stage of writing his final judgment, discover that it is wrongly admitted. In such an instance, the judge has a duty to expunge the evidence and decide on legally admissible evidence. This can be done even at the stage of judgment writing. Per Uwaifo JSC. Based on the above decision and on the balance of probabilities, justice will have been done if the above approach is taken. That is admitting now and expunging later, rather than rejecting evidence now, and later discovering that it ought not to have been rejected. On the whole, and for all the reasons given above, the Defendant’s counsel’s objection to admissibility of documents tendered, hereby fails. The court will proceed to admit the documents tendered by the Claimant’s counsel through it’s first witness in the order listed in the Index of list of documents. The documents are hereby admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits CC1 to CC399 respectively. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O.Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge