The document was just dumped on the lower court without any witness speaking to the document. In the circumstance, the lower court and indeed this court shall not accord it any probative value. In Okereke vs. Umahi & Ors (2016) LPELR-40035 (SC),the apex court per Sanusi JSC at pages 65-67 held:
“Now on the issue of dumping of these documents on the Tribunal, this Court decided in replete of numerous authorities to the effect that in any case whether election or non-election matter, any party tendering documentary evidence has the task of linking such documents to the specific aspects of his case for which such documents so tendered be leading evidence of the purport of the document in relation to the aspect of his case. In other words, he should not merely dump them in the Court or Tribunal and expect the Tribunal or Court to embark on speculation in determining the purport for which it was tendered or to which aspect of the case such document relates, without being guided by any oral evidence led in open Court. Infact, this Court in the case of Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) vs. Lamido & others (2012) LPELR 782J (SC) had this to say at page 38 per Fabiyi JSC: –
“It is not in doubt that the stated Exhibits were not demonstrated in the open Court. They were the type of documents which this Court affirmed as rightly expunged by the Court of Appeal in Buhari vs. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246 at 414.This is so, as there is a dichotomy between admissibility of documents and the probative value to be based on relevance, probative value depends not only on relevant but also on proof. Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue.”
I must say, that it is not the duty of a Court or Tribunal to act within the realm of conjuncture in determining what a document so tendered relates to, or for what purpose it was meant to serve by tendering it, or to proceed to embark on making inquiry into the case outside the Court not even by examining of such documents which are in evidence but not examined in open Court. A judge is an adjudicator and not an investigator. See Queen v. Wilcox (1961) 1 SCN LR 296; (1961) 1 All NLR 633, Dennis Ivienagor vs. Henry Osala Bazuaye (1999) 6 SCNJ 235 at 243 Fawehinmi vs. Akinlaja (2010) LPELR 8963.
The petitioner’s/appellant’s failure to lead oral evidence to link the documents with what he pleaded in the petition therefore justifies the Tribunal to refuse to act on them as it is not the Tribunal’s function to speculate on what such documents were meant to specifically establish or prove.”
See also Bakut & Anor vs Ishaku & Ors (2015) LPELR- 41858 (CA); Alapa & Anor vs. INEC & Anor (2015) LPELR-41775 (SC)”. By Per E. Tobi, J.C.A in the case of
