"The intendment of the illiterates' Protection Law has been well analysed in some cases decided by the Supreme Court. In FATUNBI & ANOR VS. OLANLOYE & ORS. (2004) 12 NWLR (PT. 887) 229, PatsAchonolu, JSC held: "It needs be emphasized that the provision in Section 3 (Supra) is intended for the protection of the illiterate person. Essentially, it is equally to trace the whereabouts of the maker of the statement. Care must be taken that we do not put in the intendment of that provision what is not intended to accomplish. It is to ensure that what is stated there reflects what the illiterate person has stated and intended to be correctly put in such a document, and he is the only person to complain if that is not the case.
Thus, in EDOKPOLO & CO. LTD. VS. OHENHEN (1994) 7 NWLR (PT. 358) 511 @ 525, the Supreme Court per Iguh, JSC, held: 'It ought also to be noted that Section 3 of that law only raises or provides certain presumptions of law in respect of a document prepared at the request of an illiterate by any person who shall write such a document his own as the writer and his address.....The purpose of the said provisions under Section 3 of the law is also to ensure in furtherance to the said protection of illiterate that the writer of such document is identified or traced". Implicit in that Section is that where there exists a doubt or a denial as to the correct statements that were made by the illiterate, the writer will be traced to show whether the contents of the document represent the veracity of what the illiterate asserts. In other words, the protection singularly enures only to the illiterate. See DJUKPAN VS. OROVUYOVBE (1967) 1 ALL NLR 134 @ 140 and ANYABUNSI VS. UGWUNZE (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 401) 225 @ 272.2." See also, the case of WILSON & ANOR VS. OSHIN & ORS (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 673) 442. It is clear and certain that the illiterates Protection Law is intended for the protection of an illiterate person.
This protection is essentially to prevent the literates from taking undue advantage of the illiterates in their intention to convey their property away. The law makes it mandatory for a jurat on the document wherewith the witness' name and identity can be verified in case of any dispute as to whether what was written down tallies with what the illiterates asserts. The protection is personal and it enures only to the illiterates. It is therefore the illiterate involved that can raise issues of his protection under the law. The Appellant in the instant case not being the illiterate is therefore not having the locus to raise the issue."
Per ADAH, J.C.A. IN ISIN v. EDEM & ANOR CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44046(CA)
