DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS CITATION: (2016) LPELR-41257(SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria ON WEDNESDAY, 20TH JULY, 2016 Suit No: SC.518/2016 Before Their Lordships: SULEIMAN GALADIMA Justice of the Supreme Court OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of the Supreme Court NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA Justice of the Supreme Court CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of the Supreme Court KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of the Supreme Court KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of the Supreme Court CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of the Supreme Court Between HON. HENRY SERIAKE DICKSON - Appellant(s) And 1. CHIEF TIMIPRE MARLIN SYLVA 2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) 3. THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 4. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) - Respondent(s) RATIO DECIDENDI (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)
94
Embed
ON WEDNESDAY, 20TH JULY, 2016 (2016) LPELR …lawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/41257.pdf · · 2016-12-14In the Supreme Court of Nigeria ON WEDNESDAY, 20TH JULY, 2016 ... EVIDENCE
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS
CITATION: (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
ON WEDNESDAY, 20TH JULY, 2016Suit No: SC.518/2016
Before Their Lordships:
SULEIMAN GALADIMA Justice of the Supreme CourtOLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of the Supreme CourtNWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA Justice of the Supreme CourtCLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of the Supreme CourtKUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of the Supreme CourtKUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBOKEKERE-EKUN Justice of the Supreme Court
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of the Supreme Court
BetweenHON. HENRY SERIAKE DICKSON - Appellant(s)
And1. CHIEF TIMIPRE MARLIN SYLVA2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)3. THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORALCOMMISSION (INEC)4. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
- Respondent(s)
RATIO DECIDENDI
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
1. COURT - DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court to confine its decision within respectable limits ofthe scope of the enquiry before it"I, entirely, endorse this view. The application to play the DVD had nothing to do with itsadmissibility (in any event, at that stage it was already in evidence). It rather rest on an,entirely, different juridical postulate which this Court explained in A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura [2016]5 NWLR (Pt. 1505) 316, 343; Okereke v. Umahi & Ors [2016] 2-3 SC (Pt. 1) 1, 50. According tothis Court [per Nweze, JSC] in A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura (supra) pages 343-344:This prescription [that parties have a duty to link their documents with their averments intheir pleadings] rests on the adversarial nature of our jurisprudence which we inherited fromthe common law.It is, therefore, the impregnable juridical postulate of our adversarial jurisprudence thatprohibits a Judge from embarking on an inquisitorial examination of documents outside theCourt room. A fortiori, it is anathema for a Judge to be allowed to act on what he discoveredfrom such a document in relation to an issue when that was not supported by evidence or wasnot brought to the notice of the parties to be agitated in the adversarial procedure. Theauthorities on this point are many. We shall only cite one or two of them here, Ivienagbor v.Bazuaye [1999] 9 NWLR (Pt. 620) 552; (1999) 6 SCNJ 235, 243; Owe v. Oshinbanjo (1965) 1 AllNLR 72 at 75; Bornu Holding Co. Ltd. v. Alhaji Hassan Bogoco (1971) 1 All NLR 324 at 333;Alhaji Onibudo & Ors v. Alhaji Akibu & Ors [1982] 7 SC 60, 62; Nwaga v. Registered TrusteesRecreation Club (2004) FWLR (Pt. 190) 1360, 1380-1381; Jalingo v. Nyame (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.231) 538; Ugochukwu v. Co-operative Bank [1996] 7 SCNJ 22.It is against this background that viva voce depositions and the entries in documents and,indeed assertions relating to entries in such documents in electoral materials are, invariably,tested under cross-examination, Ivienagbor v. Bazuaye (supra)."Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (Pp. 27-29,Paras. E-B) - read in context
2. COURT - DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court not to go out of its way to fish out facts orevidence"As a corollary, Bello, JSC (as he then was; later C.J.N.) in Onibudo v. Akibu (supra) explainedthe rationale for the requirement of demonstrating documents in open Court. Hear HisLordship:It needs to be emphasized that the duty of a Court is to decide between the partieson the basis of what has been demonstrated, tested, canvassed and argued in Court. It is notthe duty of a Court to do cloistered justice by making an inquiry into the case outside even ifsuch inquiry is limited to examination of documents which were in evidence, when thedocuments had not been examined in Court and their examination out of Court disclosedmatters that had not been brought out and exposed to test in Court and were not suchmatters that, at least, must have been noticed in Court.."Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (Pp. 31-32, Paras.D-A) - read in context
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
3. EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS: Conditions for admissibility ofcomputer generated documents"True, indeed, the lower Court was right in its view that the trial Tribunal misapplied theprovisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act. The Section provides as follows:84(1): In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computershall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would beadmissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied inrelation to the statement and computer in question.(Italics supplied for emphasis).The conditions mentioned in Section 84(1) (supra) for theadmissibility of such statements produced by a computer are contained in Section 84 (2):(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are ???(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during aperiod over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for thepurposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, byanybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary courseof those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from whichthe information so contained is derived;(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, ifnot, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation duringthat part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or theaccuracy of its contents, and(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from informationsupplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.According to Section 84(4):(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of thisSection, a certificate(a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which itwas produced; or(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as maybe appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer; or(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) aboverelate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation tothe operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the casemay be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of thisSubsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge andbelief of the person stating it.Subsection 5 provides that:(5) For the purpose of this Section ???(a) Information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied to it in anyappropriate form and whether it is supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) bymeans of any appropriate equipment;(b) Where, in the course of activities carried on by any individual or body, information issupplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purpose of those activities by acomputer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if dulysupplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;(c) A document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was producedby it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.[Italics supplied for emphasis]. It is clear from its ipssissima verba that Section 84 (supra) laysdown the conditions for the admissibility of statements produced by a "computer:" which isdefined in Section 258 of the Act to mean "any device for storing and processing information,and any reference to information being derived from other information is a reference to itsbeing derived from it by calculation, comparison or any other process."Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (Pp.18-22, Paras. E-A) - read in context
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
4. EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS: Conditions for admissibility ofcomputer generated documents"Interpreting provisions similarly worded like Section 84 (supra), the defunct House of Lords[per Lord Griffiths] had this to say in R v. Shepherd [1993] 1 All ER 225, 231, paragraphs A-C,[HL]: Documents produced by computers are an increasingly common feature of allbusinesses and more and more people are becoming familiar with uses and operation.Computers vary immensely in their complexity and in the operations they perform. The natureof the evidence to discharge the burden of showing that there has been no improper use ofthe computer and it was operating properly will inevitably vary from case to case. Theevidence must be tailored to suit the needs of the case. I suspect that it will very rarely benecessary to call an expert and that in the vast majority of cases it will be possible todischarge the burden by calling a witness who is familiar with the operation of the computer inthe sense of knowing what the computer is required to do and who can say that it is doing itproperly. [italics supplied for emphasis]In actual fact, Section 84 (supra) consecrates two methods of proof, either by oral evidenceunder Section 84(1) and (2) or by a certificate under Section 84(4). In either case, theconditions stipulated in Section 84(2) must be satisfied. However, this is subject to the powerof the Judge to require oral evidence in addition to the certificate. As the eminent Lord Griffithexplained in the said case [R v. Shepherd]:??? Proof that the computer is reliable can be provided in two ways: either by calling oralevidence or by tendering a written certificate??? subject to the power of the Judge to requireoral evidence. It is understandable that if a certificate is to be relied upon it should show on itsface that it is signed by a person who from his job description can confidently be expected tobe in a person to give reliable evidence about the operation of the computer. This enables thedefendant to decide whether to accept at its face value or to ask the Judge to require oralevidence which can be challenged in cross examination???"Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (Pp. 23-24,Paras. A-E) - read in context
5. EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS: Conditions for admissibility ofcomputer generated documents"... Indeed, contrary to the view of the trial Tribunal, Section 84 (supra) does not ordain anysuch "two different steps and stages." Contrariwise, the provisions of the said Section 84govern the admissibility of statements produced from computers. These provisions are,similarly, worded like Section 65B (1) and (2) of the applicable Act in India. Dealing with theseprovisions, the Court reasoned [a reasoning I take liberty to adopt in this judgment] in State v.Mohd. Afzal 107 (2003) DLT 385 that:Electronic record produced [from computers on magnetic tapes (hard discs)] has to be takenin the form of a print out. Subsection (1) of Section 65B [the equivalent of Section 84(1) of theNigerian Act] makes admissible without further proof, in evidence, print out of an electronicrecord contained on a magnetic tape subject to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned inthe Section. The conditions are mentioned in Subsection (2) [this is the equivalent of Section84(2) of the Nigerian Act]. Thus compliance with Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 65B [thatis, Section 84(1) and (2) of the Nigerian Act] is enough to make admissible and proveelectronics record."Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (Pp. 30-31, Paras. C-C) - read in context
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
6. EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS: Conditions for admissibility ofcomputer generated documents"Section 84 is reproduced as follows:-"84 (1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shallbe admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would beadmissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied inrelation to the statement and computer in question(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are:(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during aperiod over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for thepurposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, byanybody, whether corporate or not by any individual;(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary courseof these activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from whichthe information so contained is derived;(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, ifnot, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation duringthat part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or theaccuracy of its contents; and(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduced or is derived from informationsupplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.(3) Where over a period the function of storing or processing information for the purposes ofany activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in Subsection (2)(a) of thisSection was regularly performed by computers, whether-(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period;(b) by different computes operating in succession over that period(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whateverorder, of one or more computers and one or more combination of computers, all thecomputers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for that purpose duringthat period shall be treated for the purposes of this Section as constituting a single computer;and references in his Section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of thisSection, a certificate.(a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which itwas produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of thatdocument as may be appropriate for the purposes of showing that the document wasproduced by a computer;(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) aboverelate; and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation tothe operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the casemay be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for purpose of thisSubsection, it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge andbelief of the person stating it.(5) For the purpose of this Subsection-(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied to it in anyappropriate form and whether it is supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) bymeans of any appropriate equipment;(b) where, in the course of activities carried on by any individual or body, information issupplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by acomputer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if dulysupplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;(c) a document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produceddirectly of (without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment."Per GALADIMA, J.S.C. (Pp. 42-46, Paras. E-B) - read in context
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
7. EVIDENCE - ORAL/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: The effect when a documentary evidencesupports oral evidence"... An exhibit, documentary evidence is a thing relied on by the party producing it for the solepurpose of strengthening his case. Once such evidence supports oral testimony such oraltestimony becomes more credible. See Omoregbe v. Lawani 1990 3-4 SC p.117: Kindley andOrs v. M G of Gongola State 1988 2 NWLR R/77 p. 47."Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (P. 53,Paras. E-F) - read in context
8. EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Meaning of document"On the other hand, document is an instrument on which is recorded information or facts. Itcontains statements. A document is any physical embodiment of information or ideas such asletter, contract, receipt, a book of account, a blue print or an X-ray plate. See Strico v. Cotto87 Misc. 2nd 636, 324 NYS 2nd 483, 486."Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (P. 56, Paras. A-C) - read in context
9. EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Meaning of document"Section 258(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides:"258. (1) In this Act -"documents" includes -(b) an disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visualimages) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment)of being reproduced from it; and(c) any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are embodiedso as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproducedfrom it."Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (P. 77, Paras. B-E) - read in context
10. EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Duty of a party relying on documents in support ofhis case"After all, it has been held in numerous decisions of this Court that documents must not bedumped on the Court but must be demonstrated by linking them to specific aspects of party'scase. See: C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 665) 365 @ 385 SC; Iniama v. Akpabio(2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1116) 296 @ 299-300 D-B; A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt.1505) 316 @ 345."Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (P. 81, Paras. A-C) - read in context
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
11. EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS: Conditions for admissibility ofcomputer generated documents"Section 84 of the Evidence Act must now be examined. It reads:-"84 (1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shallbe admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would beadmissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied inrelation to the statement and computer in question.(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are -(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by computer during a periodover which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposesof any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not by anybody,whether corporate or not, or by any individual;(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary courseof those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from whichthe information so contained is derived;(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, ifnot, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly was out of operation during thatpart of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracyof its contents; and(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from informationsupplied to the computer in the ordinary cause of these activities.84 (4): In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of thisSection a certificate -(a) Identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which itwas produced;(b) Giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document may beappropriate for the Purpose of showing that the document was produced by computer;(c) Dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) aboverelate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation tothe operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the casemay be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of thisSubsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge andbelief of the person stating it."Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (Pp. 50-52, Paras. D-E) - read incontext
12. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: The rulesor principles governing the interpretation of statutory provisions"The law is explicit that where an interpretation of a Statute would defeat the cause of justice,the Court should refrain there from. See Ikeupenikan v. State (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 788) 919 at959 a decision of this Court; on the same principle Ogbuagu, JSC also stressed the foregoingrule of Interpretation in the case of Elebanjo v. Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76 at 138."Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (Pp. 64-65, Paras. E-A) - read in context
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
13. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - SECTION 84(1) AND (2) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT:Interpretation of Section 84(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act as regards condition for theadmissibility of electronic documents"Section 84(1) and (2) Evidence Act provides:-"84 (1) In any proceeding a statement contained in document produced by a computer shallbe admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would beadmissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied inrelation to the statement and computer in question.(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are ???(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during aperiod over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for thepurpose of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, byanybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary courseof those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from whichthe information so contained is derived;(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, ifnot, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation duringthat part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or theaccuracy of its contents; and(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from informationsupplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities".The correct interpretation to be given to Section 84 of the Evidence Act where electronicallygenerated document is sought to be demonstrated is that such electronically generatedevidence must be certified and must comply with the preconditions laid down in Section 84(2).See: Kubor v. Dickson (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 676) 392 at 429." Per AKA'AHS, J.S.C. (Pp. 67-69,Paras. E-B) - read in context
14. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: Properapproach for interpreting a statute divided into parts"As rightly submitted by the learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondent, the law is wellsettledthat when a particular Section of the law has many Subsections, all such Subsections must beread together for purpose of discovering the intention of the lawmaker. See Inakoju v. Adeleke(2007) All FWLR (Pt. 353) 3 at 200 SC and Oyeniyi v. Adeleke (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 476) 1902at 1912."Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (Pp. 61-62, Paras. F-A) - read in context
15. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: The rulesor principles governing the interpretation of statutory provisions"It is pertinent to state that the position taken by the Lower Court is in accordance to settledprinciple laid down by this Court on the interpretation of Statutes wherein the following guidelines are clearly spelt out that:-1) It is the cardinal principle of law that a Court cannot, while interpreting a Statute, embarkon judicial legislation, namely lawmaking, See: Akintokun v. L.P.D.C. (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt.1345) 427 SC.2) It is also the law that a Court ought to expound and not to expand the law; that is to say itis to decide what the law is and not what it ought to be; it should tow the path of objectivityand not be subjective. See Amadi v. INEC (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 595 SC.3) It has been held also that a judge cannot and should not supply omissions in a Statute. SeeGovernor of Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 SC. 1."Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (Pp. 62-63, Paras. F-D) - read in context
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
16. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: The rulesor principles governing the interpretation of statutory provisions"The law is settled that in the interpretation of Statutes, where the words are clear andunambiguous, they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. See: Ibrahim v. Barde(1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 474) 513 @ 577 B-C; Ojokolobo v. Alamu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 377 @402 F-N. The exception is where to do so would lead to absurdity. See: Toriola v. Williams(1982) 7 SC 27 @ 46; Nonye v. Anyichie (2005) 1 SCNJ 306 @ 316. Where an interpretationwill result in breaching the object of the Statute, the Court would not lend its weight to suchan interpretation. See: Amalgamated Trustees Ltd. v. Associated Discount House Ltd. (2007)15 NWLR (Pt. 1056) 118."Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (P. 78, Paras. C-F) - read in context
17. WORDS AND PHRASES - "STATEMENT": Meaning of "statement""A statement, in a general sense, is an allegation, a declaration of matters of fact, etc. SeeBlack's Law Dictionary Special Deluxe fifth attestation, avowal, etc. See Burton's LegalThesaurus Fourth Edition page 993."Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (Pp. 55-56, Paras. F-A) - read incontext
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. (Delivering the
Leading Judgment): My Lords, the issue that calls for the
intervention of this Court, in this interlocutory appeal, falls
within a very compass. I shall revert to it anon. Before then,
however, permit my intimation of its forensic travelogue
through the rungs of the two lower Courts, namely, the
Governorship Election Tribunal (hereinafter, simply, called
“the Trial Tribunal”) and the Court of Appeal (in this
judgment to be, simply, called “the lower Court”).
The third respondent in this appeal, the Independent
National Electoral Commission, (“INEC” for short),
conducted elections into the office of the Governor of
Bayelsa State on December 5 and 6, 2015 and January 9,
2016. While the second respondent herein, All Progressives
Congress (A.P.C.), sponsored the candidature of the first
respondent, Chief Timipre Marlin Sylva; the appellant, in
this appeal, Hon Henry Seriake Dickson, contested the said
election under the platform of the Peoples Democratic
Party (P.D.P.), the fourth respondent in this appeal.
Irked by INEC's declaration of the due return
1
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
and due election of the appellant in the said election, the
first and second respondents (as petitioners) repaired to
the Trial Tribunal with their petition wherein they
challenged the election and declaration of the appellant as
the duly elected Governor of Bayelsa State. As is usual in
forensic contests of this nature, the averments in the
petitioners’ pleadings prompted vociferous and strident
joinder of issues by the respondents. In all, issues were
joined in the settled pleadings: issues which are yet to be
determined by the Trial Tribunal.
Against this background, considerable circumspection is
called for in this judgment, being a judgment in an
interlocutory appeal, so as not to breach any aspect of the
substantive issues that must, perforce, abide the final
judgment of the said Trial Tribunal. To do otherwise would
be to usurp its sole prerogative, nay more, to pre-empt and
prejudice its ultimate decision as the forum of first
instance.
In consequence, this factual narrative would be strictly,
cabined to the facts that are relevant for the determination
of this interlocutory appeal apropos the narrow issue raised
therein. What is
2
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
more, there is even no doubt that what prompted the
sequence of entreaties at the Trial Tribunal was the
averment in paragraph 23 of the petition. The appellants
averred thus:
23. Your Petitioners state that prior to the unilateral
cancellation aforesaid [a fact deposed to in paragraphs 20
and 21 of the said Petition], the Returning Officer of the
Bayelsa State Governorship election, Prof. Zana Akpagu,
had announced to the whole world that election was
conducted in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area and the
result was being awaited. Your Petitioners hereby plead the
video/CD/DVD/audio clip and newspaper report of the said
announcement and shall rely on it (sic) at the trial.
(Italics supplied for emphasis)
In the course of the hearing, and sequel to an entreaty by
the first and second respondents, the trial Tribunal, on
April 29, 2016, caused a Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad
Testificandun to be issued on Pedro Innocent or the
production Manager of Channels Television, Lagos to
testify and produce the DVD/CD/VCD/Audio Recording and
Video Clips of the coverage of 5th/6th December, 2015,
Governorship Election in Bayelsa State in respect of the
Southern
3
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
Ijaw Local Government Area of the State, page 348 of the
record. [In legal parlance, the above-mentioned Subpoena
is a process to cause a witness to appear and tender a
document and testify. This process commands him to lay
aside all pretences and excuses and appear before a Court
therein named, at a time therein mentioned to bring with
him and produce to the Court, books, papers, in his hands,
tending to elucidate the matter in issue].
Further to the order of the trial Tribunal permitting all the
witnesses on subpoena to file written Statements on oath,
Emmanuel Ogunseye filed a written deposition on oath,
pages 349-351 of the record. For their bearing on this
appeal, his depositions on paragraphs 3; 6 -12 are
reproduced hereunder:
3. That I hold a Diploma in Television and Film Production,
obtained from the Pencil Film and Television Institution,
Lagos, in 2006. I have been working in the Production
Department of Channels Television since 2007 and I am
very conversant with electronic news gathering and of
computers.
4. …
5. …
6. That on Friday 6th May, 2016, I received via email from
our Library manager in Lagos,
4
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
Mr. Patrick Oranu, visual from Channels Television
archives on our coverage of the announcement of Bayelsa
State Governorship Election which includes the
cancellation of the election in respect of Southern Ijaw
Local Government Authority in Bayelsa State as
transmitted by Channels TV on 7th December, 2015. I used
my official Dell Desktop Computer System with serial
number 25TF85J to produce a DVD containing the said
visual, which I have in my possession to tender in evidence.
7. That in compliance with the subpoena, I wish to tender a
DVD containing our coverage of the 5th and 6th December,
2015 Governorship Election in Bayelsa State in respect of
Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State as
requested by this Tribunal.
8. That all the events mentioned herein were duly recorded
by the Company’s Camera man, Pedro innocent, using our
official cameras, stored in DVD and kept in the custody of
the Company's Library Unit. I have the DVD here with me
and with the permission of the Honourable Tribunal I can
play the contents of the DVD with the aid of a laptop
computer and a projector.
9. That this my statement, the video and other
5
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
computer-generated information in the DVD referred to in
this statement herein were produced by the computers
regularly used in our office for storing and processing
information during the material period under
consideration.
10. That I confirm that over the period of December, 2015
till date there was a regular supply of information of the
kind contained in the said computers in the ordinary course
of activities in our office. I also confirm that during this
period, the said computers were operating properly and
that if during the periods the system did not work properly,
it did not affect the production of the said video or the
accuracy of the contents. And I also confirm that the
information contained in the DVD were produced or
derived from information supplied to the computers in the
ordinary course of our activities in the office.
11. That in further compliance with the requirements of the
law, I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the
video clips contained in the DVD were duly and legitimately
recorded by the Company’s Camera Man using a video
camera with the brand name JVC 600 using memory card.
At the end of the recording,
6
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
the contents of the memory card were transferred to DVD
in the course of normal activities in the company. A
separate certificate of identification signed by me is
attached to the said DVD.
12. That I confirm that I am computer literate and
participated in all stages of recording, production and
packaging of the DVD sought to be tendered in the
proceeding.
(Italics supplied for emphasis)
As evident from page 353 of the record, the said Emmanuel
Ogunseye, designated as PW51, adopted his said statement
as his evidence. Again, from page 355 of the record, it is
not in doubt that, while the certificate which the said
Emmanuel Ogunseye generated pursuant to Section 84 of
the Evidence Act, 2011 was admitted in evidence at the
trial Tribunal as exhibit P42A; the DVD, he referred to in
his written statement on oath, and which he adopted as
part of his evidence, was, also, admitted in evidence as
exhibit P42B.
What, however, triggered off the objections culminating in
the trial Tribunal's ruling which yielded the judgment of the
lower Court now on appeal before this Court was a
subsequent application by S. T. Hon, learned SAN for the
first and
7
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
second Petitioners (first and second respondents herein),
"for exhibit P42B to be played in open Court," (page 355 of
the record, italics supplied for emphasis). Following the
objections of Messrs Tayo Oyetibo, SAN and Abibo to Mr.
Hon, SAN's application, the trial Tribunal, in its Ruling,
pages 356-358 of the record, proceeded thus: "(we have
listened to the arguments for and in opposition to the
application to play the DVD - Exhibit - P42B in open Court,"
(page 356 of the record, italics supplied for emphasis).
It set out paragraph 8 of PW51's written statement on oath
wherein the said witness deposed that "… I can play the
contents of the DVD with the aid of a laptop computer and
a projector..." (Page 357 of the record; italics supplied by
the trial Tribunal). It, then, observed as follows at page 357
of the record:
In other words, therefore, the contents of the DVD stand on
its (sic, their) awn and has (sic, have) been duly certified by
Exhibit P42A. However, the playing of the content of the
DVD is the present application being contested. As shown
by the wording of paragraph 8 of the witness statement, it
is clear the laptop Computer and
8
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
the Projector are the machines or computers that relate to
that application.
It therefore behoves the applicant to do a certificate in
compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act on
them too, in particular the laptop computer to be used to
transmit or transfer the content of the DVD to the slide
(citing Section 258 (1)of the Evidence Act, 2011)
At page 358 of the record, the trial Tribunal disagreed with
the submission of Mr. Hon, SAN. The learned senior
counsel had canvassed the view that, once the computer
used for storing the information in the CD has been
certificated in compliance with Section 84 [supra], there
would be no need to do so in respect of any other computer
or device to retrieve and play same as sought to be done.
Indeed, it was the view of the trial Tribunal at page 358 of
the record that prompted the appeal of the present first
and second respondents to the lower Court. According to
the said Tribunal:
When a document is sought to be given in evidence, and
also to be demonstrated in Court the means of production
of which document fall within the definition of computer in
the Evidence Act, then two different
9
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
steps and stages are involved:
(1) the one used to store the information and;
(2) the one to be used to retrieve and if need be
demonstrate or play them out - are involved.
Both categories of computers must be certified as required
by Section 84 (supra). As I had said earlier, Exhibit P42A
covers only the computers used in production of exhibit
P42B - the DVD, but not the laptop computer and projector
now sought to be used to retrieve and play out its content.
To that extent therefore in respect of both last two
documents (the laptop and projector) the provisions of
Section 84 (supra) has (sic) not been complied with.
Application to play the DVD - exhibit P42B is accordingly
refused.
(Pages 358; italics supplied for emphasis)
Aggrieved by this ruling, the first and second respondents
(as appellants) appealed to the lower Court.
Unimpressed with the above reasoning, the lower Court
allowed the appeal. Consequentially, it ordered the trial
Tribunal to recall the PW51 to demonstrate the contents of
exhibit P42B in open Court.
Expectedly, the present appellant was not satisfied with
this development; hence this
10
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
appeal. Although he formulated three issues, at the hearing
of this appeal this morning, Oyetibo, SAN applied to
abandon issues one and three so as to dwell on issue two
only. Learned Counsel for the first and second respondents,
S. T. Hon, SAN, also, applied to abandon his preliminary
objection and Respondents' Notice. The Court ordered as
prayed; hence, only the second issue is outstanding.
Accordingly, this appeal would be determined based on
issue two alone. The said issue was couched thus:
Whether the Court of Appeal was not wrong in law
when it held that the certification of the computers
used to produce exhibit P42B in this case was
sufficient and that it was not necessary under Section
84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to certify the computers
sought to be used to demonstrate the contents of the
exhibit in open?
The first and second respondents rephrased the same Issue
in a more felicitous manner thus:
Was the Court of Appeal correct to have held that
Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 was fully
compl ied with to enable Exhibi t P42B be
demonstrated/played in open Court by the trial
Tribunal?
ARGUMENTS ON THE SOLE ISSUE
When
11
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
this appeal was heard this morning, July 20, 2016, learned
counsel for the appellant, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, who
appeared with other counsel on the Counsel’s List, adopted
the brief of argument Filed on June 29, 2016, together with
the Reply Brief sans the abandoned issues. The arguments
relating to the said issue two were canvassed on pages 11 -
30 of the said brief.
In the main, his contention was that, in addition to the
certificate already admitted as exhibit P42B (relating to the
DVD), an additional certificate was imperative with regard
to the laptop computer, projector and electronic screen
which were to be used to play or demonstrate the DVD in
open Court. In his view, these are, also, computers within
the meaning of Section 258 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011
and must be certified pursuant to Section 84 (supra)
pursuant to a community reading of Sections 84 and 258
(supra).
On his part, S. T. Hon. SAN, for the first and second
respondents, who also appeared with other counsel,
adopted and relied on the brief of argument filed on July 1,
2016, also, sans the abandoned issues one and three and
the preliminary objection and Respondents'
12
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
Notice. His arguments in respect of this issue are to be
found on pages 9 - 24 of the said brief. The net effect of his
response is that there is nothing in Section 84 (supra) that
requires certification in respect of the computer or
projector to be used in playing the said DVD in open Court.
Counsel for the other respondents did not file briefs of
argument.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
As shown above, the lower Court was unimpressed with the
reasoning of the trial Tribunal to the effect that two
categories of certificates are required under Section 84
(supra), namely, one certificate with regard to the
production and another certificate for the demonstration of
the evidence in open Court. In the leading judgment, the
lower Court (per Otisi, JCA) demonstrated a clear grasp of
the issue in contention. Listen to the enchanting elucidation
of Otisi, JCA:
The proceedings leading to this appeal, as transcribed in
the record of appeal, reveal that foundation for
admissibility of the electronic evidence was well-laid. The
electronically- generated evidence was pleaded in the
Petition as found at pages 1 - 78 of the record. Evidence
concerning
13
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
the said electronically-generated document, DVD, was
lucidly stated in the written deposition of PW51, found at
pages 349 - 351 of the record, which he adopted, page 353
of the record. The electronically-generated evidence in
issue, DVD, as well as its certificate of identification were
admitted in evidence. The certificate was exhibit P42A
while the DVD was exhibit P42B. In other words, the
electronically-generated evidence was admitted in evidence
having complied with the preconditions for its admissibility
as provided for by Section 84(supra)…
Having admitted the said DVD, the appellants sought to
have it played or demonstrated in open Court. It was the
refusal of the lower Tribunal to grant the application that
gave rise to this appeal…
(Pages 566 – 567 of the record; italics supplied for
emphasis).
His Lordship proceeded to disaggregate the statutory
requirement apropos the admissibility of electronically-
generated evidence in these words:
If the conditions for the admissibility of electronically-
generated evidence are fulfilled, there ought to be no other
impediment to it being demonstrated. The certification
14
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
provided for in Section 84 relates to the computer(s) or
gadget(s) from which the electronic document is generated
or produced. While by virtue of the provisions of Section
258 the computer or gadget to play or demonstrate the
electronic document falls under the definition of computer,
by virtue of the provisions of Section 84, which governs
admissibility of electronically-generated documents, there
is no requirement for the certification of that other
computer or gadget employed to demonstrate or play the
electronically-generated document already admitted in
evidence…
(Pages 571 – 572 of the record; italics supplied for
emphasis).
Turning to the rationale for authentication, the erudite
Justice of the Court of Appeal opined thus, pages 572 -573
of the record:
In this digital age when different creations can be achieved
electronically, the reason for the requirement of
authentication or certification of the gadget or computer
used in producing and processing the electronically-
generated documents is not far-fetched. The party seeking
to rely on such evidence must be able to show that the data
and information contained in the
15
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
electronically-generated document is truly what it claims to
be. The preconditions for admissibility set down by Section
84 are to establish this fact. The relationship between the
computer and the information is crucial. The electronic
evidence must be produced from a computer or gadget that
is inherently reliable and has been in operation over the
relevant period. There is no doubt that with present and
even future technological advances, the pre-conditions
attached to admissibility of electronically-generated
evidence by Section 84 may no longer be sufficient to
authenticate the reliability of electronic evidence. However,
these challenges are not in issue herein. One constant is
that the computer or gadget will only reproduce what has
been fed into it. The computer or gadget will demonstrate
or play what it receives. This is the reason why there is no
further need for certification of the computer or gadget to
be used to demonstrate or to play an already properly
admitted electronically-generated evidence, which had
complied with the pre-conditions of Section 84.
By means of rhetorical questions, His Lordship charted a
nexus between the application
16
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
for the demonstration of the exhibit in open Court with the
requirements of the extant Electoral Act. Hear this:
One may ask, if electronically-generated evidence is
already an exhibit before the trial Tribunal or Court, in this
case the DVD, was not to be demonstrated or played, what
was the purport of admitting it in evidence? Was it simply
to dump it on the lower Tribunal, which is the roundabout
effect, and which would in effect… sidetrack the provisions
of Paragraph 46 of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act,
2010, as amended. These provisions are that a document
admitted in evidence may be read or taken as read by
consent. When a hard copy of a document is admitted in
evidence, its contents are examined and may be read for
the trial Court to determine if they establish the facts as
alleged or to determine what weight to attach thereto…
In the same vein, when it is an electronically-generated
document which has been admitted in evidence, upon
fulfilling all pre-conditions and it is not taken as read by
consent, then it ought to be demonstrated or played to
prove the facts alleged. Otherwise, it remains a closed or
17
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
‘sleeping’ document, which is unusable and which need not
have been brought before the trial Court or Tribunal in the
first place as it would merely amount to clutter…
(Pages 573 – 574 of the record).
In consequence, His Lordship allowed the appeal. He held
that “the lower Tribunal misapplied the provisions of
Section 84 (supra) in its ruling that the said provisions
were not complied with by the appellants’ PW51, and
thereby precluding the appellants from demonstrating or
playing the DVD, exhibit P42B in open Court," (pages 574 –
575 of the record). He ordered that the DVD admitted in
evidence before the lower Tribunal as exhibit P42B be
played/demonstrated in open Court. The Court also ordered
that PW51 shall be recalled to give effect to the order.
True, indeed, the lower Court was right in its view that the
trial Tribunal misapplied the provisions of Section 84 of the
Evidence Act. The Section provides as follows:
84(1):
In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document
produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of
any fact stated in it of which direct oral
18
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the
conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in
relation to the statement and computer in question.
(Italics supplied for emphasis)
The conditions mentioned in Section 84(1) (supra) for the
admissibility of such statements produced by a computer
are contained in Section 84 (2):
(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this
Section are –
(a) that the document containing the statement was
produced by the computer during a period over which the
computer was used regularly to store or process
information for the purposes of any activities regularly
carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by
anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;
(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the
computer in the ordinary course of those activities
information of the kind contained in the statement or of the
kind from which the information so contained is derived;
(c) that throughout the material part of that period the
computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any
respect in which it was not operating properly
19
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
or was out of operation during that part of that period was
not such as to affect the production of the document or the
accuracy of its contents, and
(d) that the information contained in the statement
reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the
computer in the ordinary course of those activities.
According to Section 84(4):
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a
statement in evidence by virtue of this Section, a certificate
(a) identifying the document containing the statement and
describing the manner in which it was produced; or
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the
production of that document as may be appropriate for the
purpose of showing that the document was produced by a
computer; or
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions
mentioned in Subsection (2) above relate, and purporting to
be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in
relation to the operation of the relevant device or the
management of the relevant activities, as the case may be,
shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and
for the purpose of this Subsection it
20
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of
the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
Subsection 5 provides that:
(5) For the purpose of this Section –
(a) Information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer
if it is supplied to it in any appropriate form and whether it
is supplied directly or (with or without human intervention)
by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) Where, in the course of activities carried on by any
individual or body, information is supplied with a view to its
being stored or processed for the purpose of those
activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the
course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied
to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the
course of those activities;
(c) A document shall be taken to have been produced by a
computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or
without human intervention) by means of any appropriate
equipment.
[Italics supplied for emphasis]
It is clear from its ipssissima verba that Section 84 (supra)
lays down the conditions for the admissibility of statements
produced
21
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
by a "computer:" which is defined in Section 258 of the Act
to mean "any device for storing and processing information,
and any reference to information being derived from other
information is a reference to its being derived from it by
calculation, comparison or any other process."
In effect, it is Section 84 of the Evidence Act that lays down
the conditions for the admissibility of electronically
generated evidence, Kubor v. Dickson [2013] 2 NWLR
(Pt. 1345) 534, 577-578; Omisore and Anor v.
Aregbesola & Ors. [2015] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205,
295 and not Section 258 of the Act, the definition Section,
as erroneously, contended by Mr. Oyetibo, SAN for the
Appellant.
As shown above, the DVD in question was admitted in
evidence as exhibit P42B. Thus, in this appeal, what is in
issue in not even the admissibility of evidence, but the
narrow question whether Section 84 (supra) deals with the
additional requirement of certification of gadgets for
playing or demonstrating an already admitted piece of
evidence in open Court.
Both the trial Tribunal and Oyetibo, SAN argued in favour
of such an additional certificate. However, that cannot be.
22
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
Interpreting provisions similarly worded like Section 84
(supra), the defunct House of Lords [per Lord Griffiths] had
this to say in R v. Shepherd [1993] 1 All ER 225, 231,
paragraphs A-C, [HL]:
Documents produced by computers are an increasingly
common feature of all businesses and more and more
people are becoming familiar with uses and operation.
Computers vary immensely in their complexity and in the
operations they perform. The nature of the evidence to
discharge the burden of showing that there has been no
improper use of the computer and it was operating properly
will inevitably vary from case to case. The evidence must be
tailored to suit the needs of the case. I suspect that it will
very rarely be necessary to call an expert and that in the
vast majority of cases it will be possible to discharge the
burden by calling a witness who is familiar with the
operation of the computer in the sense of knowing what the
computer is required to do and who can say that it is doing
it properly.
[italics supplied for emphasis]
In actual fact, Section 84 (supra) consecrates two methods
of proof, either by oral evidence under Section 84(1) and
23
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
(2) or by a certificate under Section 84(4). In either case,
the conditions stipulated in Section 84(2) must be satisfied.
However, this is subject to the power of the Judge to
require oral evidence in addition to the certificate. As the
eminent Lord Griffith explained in the said case [R v.
Shepherd]:
… Proof that the computer is reliable can be provided in
two ways: either by calling oral evidence or by tendering a
written certificate… subject to the power of the Judge to
require oral evidence. It is understandable that if a
certificate is to be relied upon it should show on its face
that it is signed by a person who from his job description
can confidently be expected to be in a person to give
reliable evidence about the operation of the computer. This
enables the defendant to decide whether to accept at its
face value or to ask the Judge to require oral evidence
which can be challenged in cross examination…
[Italics supplied for emphasis]
In the instance appeal, there has been no suggestion that
the evidence of PW51 did not satisfy the above conditions.
Indeed, from his written deposition, which he adopted at
the
24
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
trial Tribunal, the witness would appear to have more than
a passing acquaintance with the provisions of Section 84 of
the Evidence Act (supra). Hear what he said:
6. ... I used my official Dell Desktop System with serial
number 25TF85J to produce a DVD containing the said
visual, which I have in my possession to tender in evidence.
7. …
8. That all the events mentioned herein were duly recorded
by the Company's Camera man, Pedro Innocent, using our
official cameras, stored in DVD and kept in the custody of
the Company's Library Unit. I have the DVD here with me
and with the permission of the Honourable Tribunal I can
play the contents of the DVD with the aid of a laptop
computer and a projector.
9. That this my statement, the video and other computer-
generated information in the DVD referred to in this
statement herein were produced by the computers
regularly used in our office for storing and processing
information during the material period under
consideration.
10. That I confirm that over the period of December, 2015
till date there was a regular supply of information of the
kind contained in the said computers in the
25
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
ordinary course of activities in our office. I also confirm
that during this period, the said computers were operating
properly and that if during the periods the system did not
work properly, it did not affect the production of the said
video or the accuracy of their contents. And I also confirm
that the information contained in the DVD were produced
or derived from information supplied to the computers in
the ordinary course of our activities in the office.
11. That in further compliance with the requirements of the
law, I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the
video clips contained in the DVD were duly and legitimately
recorded by the Company's Camera Man using a video
camera with the brand name JVC 600 using memory card.
At the end of the recording, the contents of the memory
card were transferred to DVD in the course of normal
activities in the company. A separate certificate of
identification signed by me is attached to the said DVD.
12. That I confirm that I am computer literate and
participated in all stages of recording, production and
packaging of the DVD sought to be tendered in the
proceeding.
[Italics supplied for
26
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
emphasis]
As shown above, the said DVD was admitted in evidence.
Mr. Hon. SAN's application, at the trial Tribunal was that
the witness be allowed to play the said DVD in open Court.
It is rather strange that Oyetibo, SAN sought to resist the
attempt to play the said DVD at the hearing of the Tribunal.
As the lower Court, rightly, observed:
… when it is an electronically-generated document which
has been admitted in evidence, upon fulfilling all pre-
conditions and it is not taken as read by consent, then it
ought to be demonstrated or played to prove the facts
alleged. Otherwise, it remains a closed or 'sleeping'
document, which is unusable and which need not have been
brought before the trial Court or Tribunal in the first place
as it would merely amount to clutter…
Pages 573-574 of the record.
I, entirely, endorse this view. The application to play the
DVD had nothing to do with its admissibility (in any event,
at that stage it was already in evidence). It rather rest on
an, entirely, different juridical postulate which this Court
explained in A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura [2016] 5 NWLR (Pt.
1505) 316, 343; Okereke v. Umahi
27
(201
6) LP
ELR-41
257(
SC)
& Ors [2016] 2-3 SC (Pt. 1) 1, 50. According to this
Court [per Nweze, JSC] in A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura (supra)
pages 343-344:
This prescription [that parties have a duty to link their
documents with their averments in their pleadings] rests on
the adversarial nature of our jurisprudence which we
inherited from the common law.
It is, therefore, the impregnable juridical postulate of our
adversarial jurisprudence that prohibits a Judge from
embarking on an inquisitorial examination of documents
outside the Court room. A fortiori, it is anathema for a
Judge to be allowed to act on what he discovered from such
a document in relation to an issue when that was not
supported by evidence or was not brought to the notice of
the parties to be agitated in the adversarial procedure. The
authorities on this point are many.
We shall only cite one or two of them here, Ivienagbor v.