"In the light of these peculiar facts, the EFCC could not be expected to pay fees for the certification of documents which were at all times in their custody and which were produced from their custody to the trial Court in proof of a case which they investigated.
These circumstances clearly do not fall within the purview of Section 104 of the Act in that, it is the same EFCC, as the public officer in custody of the documents, who actually produced and tendered the documents in Court. This is therefore a scenario/situation which is not accommodated within the provision Section 104(1) of the Act with the regard to the payment of fees, as none are prescribed. It is therefore in this light that the decision of this Court in Lamido v FRN (Unreported) Appeal No. CA/K/436/C/2013, per Abiru, JCA, is relevant.
Therein, it is stated thus"A look at this provision vis-a-vis the provision of Section 111(1) of the Evidence Act, Cap E14 Laws of the Federation 1990 interpreted in Tabik Investment Ltd v Guaranty Trust Bank (supra) shows that they are similar, but for the fact that the requirement for the payment of legal fees for certification in Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is qualified by the words "prescribed in that respect". This qualification is not contained in the provision of Section 111 of the Evidence Act, 1990. It is a fundamental rule of interpretation of statute that words used in a statute are not put there for fun; they are for a purpose.
The inclusion of the words "prescribed in that respect" by the legislature in Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 could not have been by mistake or by oversight. It was intended to have a meaning and effect." (Emphasis supplied). I therefore agree that in not paying fees to certify Exhibit 41 series for its own purposes, the Respondent did not fall foul of the law. Thus, I uphold the finding of the learned trial Judge that the documents were a direct communication between the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Greece and the EFCC, and it contains the authentication by the EFCC that they are certified true copies of the very documents which they received."
Per SANKEY, J.C.A.IN JUBRIL v. FRN CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43993(CA)
"The law regulating the certification of public documents is as set out in Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and it provides as follows "104(1) Every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it prescribed in that respect together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part of it as the case may be." In Tabik Investment Ltd v Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (2011) LPELR-3131(SC); & Biye v Biye (2014) LPELR-24003(CA) amongst other numerous decisions, the Supreme Court and this Court have stated emphatically that payment of legal fees and evidence of same is an integral part of the certification process, it cannot be waived and none can be exempted from paying such certification fees. It is not in issue that the documents tendered as Exhibit 41 are public documents, and the law is that for them to be legally admissible evidence, they must be duly certified - Sections 102 to 105 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Alamieyeseigha v FRN (2006) 16 NWLR (pt. 1004) 1; & Araka v Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (pt. 848). It is also the law that, with regard to public documents, persons interested in being issued with certified true copies of same must pay the prescribed fees before same are issued."
Per SANKEY, J.C.A. IN JUBRIL v. FRN CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43993(CA)
