FRN v. SHEMA (2022)

FRN v. SHEMA

(2022)LCN/16696(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022

CA/K/99C/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Amina Audi Wambai Justice of the Court of Appeal

Bitrus Gyarazama Sanga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA APPELANT(S)

And

IBRAHIM SHEHU SHEMA RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT GENERAL ADMISSIBILITY IS BASED ON RELEVANCE

Firstly, it is trite that generally admissibility is based on relevance. Once evidence is probative of the fact in issue, it is considered to be relevant and therefore admissible. Thus, once a piece of evidence is relevant for proper determination of a fact in issue, the Court is bound to admit it. See the case of HARUNA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2012) 9 NWLR (PT. 1306) 419 AT 437 SC. However, relevancy is not the only yardstick for admissibility because even if a piece of evidence is relevant, it must still pass other admissibility tests for it to be admissible. See the case of SUBERU VS. STATE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 520) 1263. Put differently, not all relevant documents are admissible. See also, the case of SAMUEL ISHENO VS. JULIUS BERGER (NIG) LTD (2008) 6 NWLR (PT. 1084) 582 AT 603. PER IDRIS, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON AN UNSIGNED DOCUMENT

Moving on, it is true that the law is that an unsigned document is void and worthless and cannot generate or initiate an action. See the case of BREWTECH NIGERIA LIMITED VS. FOLAGESHIN AKINNAWO (2016) LPELR – 40094 (CA). It is entitled to no weight and it is incapable of being used by a Court to resolve facts that are disputed in an action between parties. See the case of TSALIBAWA VS. HABIBA(1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 174) 463.

A document which does not bear the signature of the maker should attract little or no weight although it is not inadmissible in evidence. See the case of JINADU VS. ESUROMBI-ARO (2009) 9 NWLR (PT. 1145) 55 SC. PER IDRIS, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE A PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT

Therefore, once a piece of evidence is relevant, it ought to be admitted and thereafter the trial judge in considering the evidence will determine what weight to attach to it. From this particular finding on admissibility of documents and the weight to be attached, it is my considered view that the documents rejected by the trial Court were rejected in error as they are relevant to the case of the Appellant and thus admissible in law and the weight to be attached to it would be determined as the case progresses to conclusion. The trial Court was therefore wrong in rejecting the vouchers it rejected and marked rejected and on the grounds stated in its ruling as such should be done after admission of the documents and at the stage of writing judgment. See the case of ABUBAKAR VS. CHUKS (2007) 18 NWLR (PT. 1066) 386. PER IDRIS, J.C.A.

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Respondent herein, as Defendant in the Court below was charged vide Charge No: FHC/KT/26C/2018 dated the 19th day of March, 2018. The said charge contained twenty-six counts as follows:
COUNT ONE
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State and one Idris Kwado (now at large) between June, 2014 and May, 2015 at Katsina, Katsina State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did conspire to commit an offence to wit: Money Laundering and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2012 and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

COUNT TWO
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 17th February, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N502,216,400.00 (Five Hundred and Two Million, Two Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Four Hundred Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State Sure-P account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank Plc Katsina branch meant for peace education, advocacy and meditation programme which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT THREE
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 5th August, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N75,703, 196.40 (Seventy-Five Million, Seven Hundred and Three Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety-Six Naira and Forty Kobo) out of a total sum N151,406,392.80 (One Hundred and Fifty-One Million, Four Hundred and Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety Two Naira and Eighty Kobo only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 2731286019 domiciled at FCMB PLC Katsina branch meant for roadside planting and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT FOUR
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 30th September, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira only) out of the total sum of N61,135,000.00 (Sixty-One Million, One Hundred and Thirty-Five Thousand Naira) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 2731286019 domiciled at FCMB Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for the 27th anniversary lecture and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT FIVE
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 28th October, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N70,000,000.00 (Seventy Million Naira Only) out of the total sum of N145,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Forty-Five Million Naira only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for loan scheme and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT SIX
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 29th October, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N103,828,000.00 (One Hundred and Three Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand Naira Only) out of the total sum of N849,997,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Forty-Nine Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand Naira only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for the purchase of Hyundai Accent and tricycles and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT SEVEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about between 17th December, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N142,250,000.00 (One Hundred and Forty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira Only) out of the total sum of N284,500,000.00 (Two Hundred and Eighty-Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for youth loan scheme and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT EIGHT
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 18th December, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N108,732,000.00 (One Hundred and Eight Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand Naira Only) out of the total sum of N546,160,000.00 (Five Hundred and Forty-Six Million, One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for the purchase of tricycles (KEKE NAPEP) and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT NINE
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on 10th December, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N284,500,000.00 (Two Hundred and Eighty-Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 0027516451 domiciled at Sterling Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for youth loan scheme which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 14th January, 2015 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N284,500,000.00 (Two Hundred and Eighty-Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for poverty reduction and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT ELEVEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 16th March, 2015 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N575,000,000.00 (Five Hundred and Seventy-Five Million Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for the Empowerment programme and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TWELVE
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 16th December, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira Only) out of the total sum of N198,475,486.00 (One Hundred and Ninety-Eight Million, Four Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand Naira only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for poverty alleviation and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT THIRTEEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 2nd April, 2015 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 0027516451 domiciled at Sterling Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for Poverty Alleviation Support and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT FOURTEEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 2nd April, 2015 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N323,651,000.00 (Three Hundred and Twenty Three Million, Six Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 0027516451 domiciled at Sterling Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for assistance to rural women and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT FIFTEEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 31st December, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N498,645,400.00 (Four Hundred and Ninety-Eight Million, Six Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand, Four Hundred Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for agricultural intervention scheme and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT SIXTEEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 31st December, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N384,610,000.00 (Three Hundred and Eighty-Four Million, Six Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 2731286019 domiciled at FCMB PLC Katsina branch meant for development project and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT SEVENTEEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 11th November, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N82,500,000.00 (Eighty Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn out of the total sum of N330,255,250.00 (Three Hundred and Thirty Million, Two Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Naira) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 2731286019 domiciled at FCMB Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for the purchase of vehicles from PAN and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT EIGHTEEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 14th August, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N34,000,000.00 (Thirty Four Million Naira Only) out of the total sum of N68,000,000.00 (Sixty Eight Million Naira only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for the purchase of Hyundai Accent and tricycles and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT NINETEEN
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 31st December, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira Only) out of the total sum of N198,475,486.00 (One Hundred and Ninety-Eight Million, Four Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty-Six Naira) from Katsina State SURE-P account No: 2731286019 domiciled at FCMB Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for procurement of drugs and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TWENTY
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 3rd October, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N35,000,000.00 (Thirty-Five Million Naira Only) out of the total sum of N71,000,000.00 (Seventy One Million, Naira) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for the production of school furniture and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TWENTY-ONE
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 17th September, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N148,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Forty-Eight Million Naira Only) out of the total sum of N296,895,630.80 (Two Hundred and Ninety Six Million, Eight Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Six Naira and Eighty Kobo) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 2731286019 domiciled at FCMB Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for student’s furniture and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TWENTY-TWO
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 8th April, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N411,830,000.00 (Four Hundred and Eleven Million, Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 5030053838 domiciled at Fidelity Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for infrastructure development and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TWENTY THREE
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 8th December, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N176,400,000.00 (One Hundred and Seventy-Six Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 2018233081 domiciled at First Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for poverty alleviation and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TWENTY-FOUR
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 19th January, 2015 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N502,216,400.00 (Five Hundred and Two Million, Two Hundred and Sixteen Thousand and Four Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 2018233081 domiciled at First Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for education, advocacy and mediation project and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TWENTY-FIVE
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 19th March, 2015 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N287,500,000.00 (Two Hundred and Eighty-Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 0027516451 domiciled at Sterling Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for women empowerment programme and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As Amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT TWENTY-SIX
That you Ibrahim Shehu Shema whilst being the Executive Governor of Katsina State on or about 29th September, 2014 at Katsina within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly control the sum of N240,385,000.00 (Two Hundred and Forty Million, Three Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand Naira Only) withdrawn from Katsina State SURE-P Account No: 0027516451 domiciled at Sterling Bank PLC Katsina branch meant for loan scheme and which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: Fraud and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (As amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

The Appellant opened its case on the 13th day of November, 2018 calling PW1 – Nasir Salisu Ingawa in proof of its case and on the 14th day of January, 2019 some 22 (twenty-two) vouchers were tendered through the witness and the Respondent objected to the admissibility of some of the documents.

The Counsel addressed the trial Court on the admissibility of the documents and on the same 14th day of January, 2019, the learned trial Judge, Honourable Justice Hadiza Rabi’u Shagari gave ruling in the Charge No: FHC/KT/26C/2018 wherein the trial Court admitted some of the documents as exhibits as follows:
EXHIBIT A – Voucher 0732 dated 19th March 2015
EXHIBIT B – Voucher 0740 dated 24th November, 2014
EXHIBIT C – Voucher 0739 dated 13th November, 2014
EXHIBIT D – Voucher 0909 dated 21st April, 2015
EXHIBIT E – Voucher 0651 dated 10th November, 2014
EXHIBIT F – Voucher 0877 dated 8th April, 2015
EXHIBIT G – Voucher 0929 dated 3rd October, 2014
EXHIBIT H – Voucher 0865 dated 23rd December, 2014
EXHIBIT I – Voucher 0739 dated 11th November, 2014.
EXHIBIT J – Voucher 0928 dated 30th September, 2014
EXHIBIT K – Voucher 0754 dated 2nd September, 2014
EXHIBIT L – Voucher 0935 dated 29th December, 2014
EXHIBIT M – Voucher 0937 dated 20th November, 2014
EXHIBIT N – Voucher 0869 dated 7th January, 2015.

The Court rejected the other documents namely: Voucher No. 0751 dated 26th January, 2015, Voucher No. 0832 dated 14th November, 2014, Voucher No. 0887 dated 2nd February, 2015, Voucher No. 0802 dated 26th November, 2014, Voucher No. 0939 dated 19th January, 2015, Voucher No. 0867 dated 21st October, 2014 and Voucher No. 2443 dated 23rd February, 2015 for not being signed or inconclusive and marked them REJECTED accordingly.

Being dissatisfied with the ruling of Honourable Justice Hadiza Rabi’u Shagari, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated the 14th day of January, 2019 comprising of two Grounds of Appeal.

The parties then filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument.

The Appellant herein, filed his Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated the 12th day of November, 2021 and filed on the 19th day of November, 2021 which was settled by its Counsel, S. T. Ologunorisa, SAN wherein a sole issue for determination was distilled as follows:
Whether the trial Court was right in rejecting the vouchers it rejected and marked rejected and on the grounds stated in its ruling. (Distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal)

On the other hand, the Respondent filed his Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated and filed on the 24th day of January, 2022 and settled by his Counsel, G. A. Solomom Esq., wherein he adopted the sole issue formulated by the Appellant.

The Appellant also filed a reply brief of argument dated the 7th day of February, 2022 and filed on the 9th day of February in response.

On the sole issue, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court was absolutely wrong in rejecting Voucher No. 0751 dated 26th January, 2015, Voucher No. 0832 dated 14th November, 2014, Voucher No. 0887 dated 2nd February, 2015, Voucher No. 0802 dated 26th November, 2014, Voucher No. 0939 dated 19th January, 2015, Voucher No. 0867 dated 21st October, 2014 and Voucher No. 2443 dated 23rd February, 2015 and marking them rejected and that a look at the trial Court’s decision as contained in pages 243 – 244 of the Record of Appeal shows that the learned trial judge misdirected himself in two respects.

The Appellant’s Counsel further argued that in the first place, the trial Court which had conceded that relevance determines the admissibility of a document as provided in Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011, fell into grave error by not allowing relevance to determine the admissibility of the documents but refusing to admit them in evidence on extraneous grounds. On this point, learned counsel referred to Sections 5 and 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

The Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that a cursory look at the documents shows that they are relevant to proving the prosecution’s case by showing inter alia how the said funds were moved or diverted from the coffers of the program and amount involved and ought to have been admitted in evidence and that the Respondent did not dispute their relevance and that given the undisputed relevance of the documents the trial Court ought to have admitted them in evidence. Counsel referred to “THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN NIGERIA, (2ND EDITION, 2015, UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR PRESS).”

The Appellant’s Counsel also submitted that secondly, by refusing to admit the documents which are relevant to the matter on grounds that they are not signed or are inconclusive, the trial Court failed to appreciate or simply overlooked the clear and settled distinction between admissibility and weight to be attached to a document. On this point, counsel referred to the case of MOTANYA VS. ELINWA (1994) 7 NWLR (PT. 356) 252 AT P. 260.

The learned Appellant’s Counsel argued that on the strength of the authorities cited in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, the documents rejected by the trial Court met the requirement of admissibility i.e. relevance and ought to be admitted in evidence and that matters relating to whether or not they were signed or conclusive goes to the weight to be attached thereto by the trial Court in its judgment and thus the trial Court’s refusal to admit the documents on grounds which clearly relates to weight has occasioned a miscarriage of justice and the ruling relating to that aspect ought not to stand.

The Appellant’s Counsel further argued that the documents were signed and that it was some of the documents or letters attached to some of them that were not signed and that they are mere annexures and do not make the documents themselves unsigned and thus the finding of the trial Court is utterly perverse and ought to be set aside. On this point, counsel referred to the case of ISAH ONU VS. IBRAHIM IDU (2006) 6 SCNJ 23; (2006) JELR 47374.

The Respondent in his response to the arguments of the Appellant’s Counsel, argued that since the vouchers, though signed, were not supported by signed and complete documents based upon which they were raised, the trial Court was right in rejecting them and that it is trite that an unsigned document cannot be relied upon by the Court in resolving the issue before it. On this point, counsel referred to the case of GARUBA VS. K.I.C. LTD (2005) 5 NWLR (PT. 917) P. 176, PARAS D – E.

The learned Respondent’s Counsel further submitted that the Appellant wanted the trial Court to admit both the signed documents and the unsigned annexure and since the Court was not called upon to admit only the signed documents and exclude the unsigned annexure, it could not have embarked on such exercise more so that they were lumped together. It was argued further that the Appellant had failed and refused to appreciate the trite position of the law on the admissibility of documentary evidence and that relevancy is not at large and that a document is relevant does not as a matter of course make it admissible. On this point, counsel cited the case of OLUWATIMILEHIN IFARAMOYE VS. THE STATE (2017) LPELR – 42031 (SC).

The Respondent’s Counsel also argued that the origin of the unsigned annexure is in question and it will serve no useful purpose to admit same in evidence only to be discarded at the point of writing judgment. The trial Court considered the effect of the documents before arriving at its decision and there was no probative value to be attached therefore same was rejected by the trial Court. The Court was urged to answer the lone issue in favour of the Respondent and dismiss the appeal.

In his reply, the learned Appellant’s Counsel submitted that none of the arguments made by the Respondent’s Counsel in his brief is conceded and that no authority was cited by the learned Respondent’s Counsel to show that in the circumstance of this case, the signed documents could or ought to be rejected and none of the authorities cited by the Respondent applies to the instant case. It was further argued that the unsigned documents being annexures to the signed document are ancillary to the signed document and that it has never been the law that the fate of the ancillary affects or determines the fate of the principal. The Court was urged to reject the Respondent’s submissions and resolve the sole issue in favour of the Appellant.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUE
Having summarized the arguments of the parties herein, I shall now adopt the lone issue formulated by the Appellant and argued by the parties to this appeal. The said issue is again reproduced hereunder as follows:
Whether the trial Court was right in rejecting the vouchers it rejected and marked rejected and on the grounds stated in its ruling.

The learned counsel to the Appellant has argued that the reason given by the trial Court for rejecting the vouchers, which is that the material documents forming the basis for raising the payment vouchers were either not signed or incomplete, is absolutely untenable and not backed by law or to put differently, the plank of the Appellant’s contention is that the trial Court was wrong in rejecting the payment vouchers when they were duly signed but merely had tied to or attached to them some documents, some of which were unsigned as such issue goes to weight and not admissibility. I shall now address the two points of argument by the Appellant’s Counsel, one of which is that relevancy determines admissibility of a document and the other being that there is a clear distinction between admissibility and the weight to be attached to a document.

Firstly, it is trite that generally admissibility is based on relevance. Once evidence is probative of the fact in issue, it is considered to be relevant and therefore admissible. Thus, once a piece of evidence is relevant for proper determination of a fact in issue, the Court is bound to admit it. See the case of HARUNA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2012) 9 NWLR (PT. 1306) 419 AT 437 SC. However, relevancy is not the only yardstick for admissibility because even if a piece of evidence is relevant, it must still pass other admissibility tests for it to be admissible. See the case of SUBERU VS. STATE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 520) 1263. Put differently, not all relevant documents are admissible. See also, the case of SAMUEL ISHENO VS. JULIUS BERGER (NIG) LTD (2008) 6 NWLR (PT. 1084) 582 AT 603. This is not the case here as the objection raised by the Respondent at the trial Court to my mind does not bother on whether the documents it objected to have passed the test of admissibility but it was based on the fact that Voucher No. 0751 dated 26th January, 2015, Voucher No. 0832 dated 14th November, 2014, Voucher No. 0887 dated 2nd February, 2015, Voucher No. 0802 dated 26th November, 2014, Voucher No. 0939 dated 19th January, 2015, Voucher No. 0867 dated 21st October, 2014 and Voucher No. 2443 dated 23rd February, 2015 were not signed or inconclusive. See pages 38 – 40 of the Record of Appeal.

One of the grounds of objection that can be raised to the admissibility of a document is that the document sought to be tendered is an unsigned document whether public or private. However, the first consideration when there is no statutory impediment to the admissibility of a document and in admitting such document would be the relevance of the document to the case under consideration. Looking at the said documents rejected by the trial Court i.e. Voucher No. 0751 dated 26th January, 2015, Voucher No. 0832 dated 14th November, 2014, Voucher No. 0887 dated 2nd February, 2015, Voucher No. 0802 dated 26th November, 2014, Voucher No. 0939 dated 19th January, 2015, Voucher No. 0867 dated 21st October, 2014 and Voucher No. 2443 dated 23rd February, 2015, it is clear that they are relevant to proving the case of the Prosecution against the Respondent just like Exhibits A – N admitted in evidence by the trial Court.

It is also important to state here before I proceed further, that I am of the unshaken view that annexures to documents forms part of that document and the intention is clear that the documents and its annexures should be read as a whole. Thus, any fault in any of the annexure affects the whole document as in this case.

Moving on, it is true that the law is that an unsigned document is void and worthless and cannot generate or initiate an action. See the case of BREWTECH NIGERIA LIMITED VS. FOLAGESHIN AKINNAWO (2016) LPELR – 40094 (CA). It is entitled to no weight and it is incapable of being used by a Court to resolve facts that are disputed in an action between parties. See the case of TSALIBAWA VS. HABIBA(1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 174) 463.

However, considering the second issue of argument by the Appellant that there is a distinction between admissibility and weight attached to a document, a document must first be legally admissible and in fact admitted into evidence before the weight to be attached to it is considered. See the case of OKONJI VS. NJOKANMA (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 202) 131 AT 145. Thus, admissibility and weight to be attached are in different compartments in the law of evidence as the Appellant’s Counsel has rightly argued. It is also not the law that once a document is admitted in evidence, due weight must be placed on the document. Little or no weight can still be attached to a document that has been admitted in evidence. This is especially so for unsigned documents as in such a case, the document is as worthless as if it had not been admitted in the first place. A document which does not bear the signature of the maker should attract little or no weight although it is not inadmissible in evidence. See the case of JINADU VS. ESUROMBI-ARO (2009) 9 NWLR (PT. 1145) 55 SC.

Therefore, once a piece of evidence is relevant, it ought to be admitted and thereafter the trial judge in considering the evidence will determine what weight to attach to it. From this particular finding on admissibility of documents and the weight to be attached, it is my considered view that the documents rejected by the trial Court were rejected in error as they are relevant to the case of the Appellant and thus admissible in law and the weight to be attached to it would be determined as the case progresses to conclusion. The trial Court was therefore wrong in rejecting the vouchers it rejected and marked rejected and on the grounds stated in its ruling as such should be done after admission of the documents and at the stage of writing judgment. See the case of ABUBAKAR VS. CHUKS (2007) 18 NWLR (PT. 1066) 386.

This issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant.

In the circumstances, the documents rejected by the trial Court shall be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits. The appeal is meritorious and it is therefore allowed. I make no orders as to costs.

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, JCA.

I am in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion that the said vouchers were wrongly rejected in evidence by the learned trial judge. I adopt the reasoning in the lead judgment in allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision of the lower Court rejecting the vouchers in evidence. Accordingly, I abide by the consequential order directing the lower Court to admit the said vouchers in evidence.

BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.: I have read in draft, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, M. B. Idris, JCA. I agree with and adopt as mine the finding and conclusion reached by my brother in the lead judgment that once documents are relevant (as in the instant case) then they are admissible. It is the weight to be attach to them during evaluation by the trial Judge in considering their probative value that matters. I also join my brother in allowing this appeal and ordering the documents in contention to be admitted in evidence and be marked accordingly.