Documentary Evidenc...
 

Documentary Evidence  

 

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2019 9:32 pm  

 EZURUIKE v. 7UP BOTTLING CO. PLC
(2018) LPELR-44626(CA)

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE : Effect of failure to call the maker of a document as witness
PRINCIPLE
"I must confess that Exhibit C lacks probative value. To begin with and much as it is relevant in the circumstance, all the same the appellant/CW1 through whom it was admitted in evidence is obviously not the maker. By the provisions of Section 37(a) of the Evidence Act, 2011, it qualifies as a documentary hearsay. Not being the maker of the document, the appellant lacks the competence to testify on it or entertain questions pertaining to its content. Added to this is the fact that the said Exhibit C is undated consequent upon which it is fraught with doubt as to whether it was not a cooked document made solely for this matter. See the authorities of Garuba vs. K.I.C. Ltd. (2005) 5 NWLR Pt. 917, pg. 160; Omega Bank (Nig.) Plc. vs. O.B.C. Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR Pt. 928, pg. 547; Jinadu vs. Esurombi-Aro (2009) 9 NWLR Pt. 1145, pg. 55; and Global Soaps & Detergent Ind. Ltd. vs. NAFDAC (2011) All FWLR Pt. 599, pg. 1025 at 1047, upon which I lean to hold that Exhibit C lacks veracity and cannot be acted upon by the Court. In the absence of the maker of Exhibit C, no weight can be attached to it with regard to the cause of the purported ailment the appellant suffered from on his said birthday." Per JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A. (Pp. 19-20, Paras. E-D

Source law pavilion


Quote
Share:
Views All Time
Views All Time
251226
Views Today
Views Today
351