G

MINISTER FOR WORKS, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS. vs. OGUNGBE(2018)LPELR-45977(CA)

ISSUE: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: Circumstances in which evidence that was not frontloaded will be admissible

PRINCIPLE:
"Contrary to the Respondent's contention it is limpid that the above ground complains about the admissibility of documents in evidence on the grounds that the documents were not frontloaded. However, the complaint is not in respect of the entire Exhibit B series, which in all is about 40 documents. The complaint is only in respect of three documents, Exhibits B10, B15 (1) and B15 (2). The resolution of this issue will therefore be restricted to the said three documents. The Appellants complaint is that Exhibits B10, B15 (1) and B15 (2) were not frontloaded as a result of which their right to fair hearing was breached. It is instructive to note at this outset that the Appellants have not complained that the facts in respect of which the Respondent claimed the cost of moving her property to Sagamu, Ogun State, as a result of her forceful eviction were not pleaded. The Respondent averred to the said facts and the documents to be relied upon in proof thereof in paragraphs 32-38 (a), claiming the specific relief in paragraph 46 (k) of the 2nd Amended Statement of Claim. So the Appellants were well aware of the Respondent's claim in that regard and were neither taken unawares nor by surprise. The Appellants grouch is that the documents pleaded, id est, receipt and way bill (Exhibit B10) and the photographs showing the Respondent's property packed outside the house after her forceful ejection (Exhibit B15 (1) and B15 (2)) were not frontloaded. It seems to me that the purpose of the requirement of the Rules of Court for the frontloading of documents is in order to expedite the trial by giving the parties an overview of the case and the documents to be relied upon, with a view to the necessary concessions and understandings being reached on the admissibility of the documents by consent and eschewing unnecessary objections to the admissibility of the documents: BUHARI vs. HADDY SMART (NIG.)LTD. (2009) LPELR (8362) 1 at 22 and OKALI vs. OKALI (2017) LPELR (42838) 1 at 41. By all odds, Order 3 Rule 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules provides for frontloading of documents and that where there is non-compliance, the process shall not be accepted for filing. Furthermore, Order 20 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court gives the Trial Judge the discretion, in the interest of justice to admit, in evidence, a document which had not been frontloaded. The lower Court in exercise of this discretion admitted the documents in evidence. The question is whether the manner of exercise of discretion by the lower Court occasioned injustice to the Appellants or otherwise breached their right to fair hearing? I reiterate that the facts in respect of the documents were amply pleaded and the Appellants were well aware that they would meet that case at the trial. So they were neither ambushed nor taken by surprise. The major index for admissibility of evidence is relevance. It is trite law that a document in support of a pleaded fact need not be specifically pleaded for it to be admissible. See MONIER CONSTRUCTION CO. vs. AZUBUIKE (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 136) 74 and OKONKWO vs. CCB NIG. PLC (2003) 8 NWLR (PT. 822) 347. In the circumstances, the Appellants right to fair hearing was not infringed by the exercise of discretion by the lower Court to admit the documents in evidence, since on the state of the pleadings it was reasonably foreseeable that the special damages claimed for moving the Respondent's property to Sagamu, Ogun State had to be specifically proved by documentary evidence as pleaded. Accordingly, no injustice was occasioned to the Appellants. I gave due consideration to the Appellants submission that frontloading of documents is the fourth criterion for the admissibility of documentary evidence. I am however not enthused by the contention. It is rudimentary that three main criteria govern the admissibility of documents. viz: 1.) a document is admissible in evidence if the facts in respect thereof are pleaded; 2) if the document is relevant to the inquiry before the Court; and 3) if the document is admissible in law. See OKONJI vs. NJOKANMA (1999) 6 NWLR (PT. 638) 250 and OKOYE vs. OBIASO (2010) 7 NWLR (PT. 1195) 145 at 163. While every admissible evidence is relevant, it is not every relevant evidence that is admissible. An otherwise relevant evidence may be rendered inadmissible if it does not successfully pass through the furnace of the admissibility requirements under the Evidence Act. The Court has no discretion to admit a document rendered inadmissible by the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is for this reason that I am unable to agree that the frontloading requirement is the fourth criterion for admissibility of evidence. No. The trial Court still retains the discretion to admit evidence which meets the three main criteria for admissibility of evidence, notwithstanding that there had been non-compliance with the Rules of Court in
respect of frontloading documents. In a coda, this issue is resolved against the Appellants. The Appellants right to fair hearing was not violated by the exercise of discretion by the lower Court to admit and place reliance on documents which were not frontloaded but the facts in respect of which were pleaded, were relevant and admissible in law." Per OGAKWU, JCA. (Pp. 35-40, Paras. D-A).