LATEEF ATOBATELE ALI v. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC
(2014) LCN/6866(CA)
RATIO
EVIDENCE: WHERE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE MAKER
In A.G. OYO STATE VS FAIRLAKES HOTELS LTD (1989) 12 SCNJ 1 at 20 the Supreme Court held that in an appropriate circumstance, documentary evidence is admissible in the absence of the maker, by virtue of the equivalent of Section 91(2) of the present Evidence Act. See also IGHODEIN VS OBIANTE (1976) 9 – 10 SC 179. In UDO VS ESHIET (1994) 8 NWLR (PT 363) 483 this court held that a person who has taken custody of a letter sent to him could tender it without having to call the maker thereof. See also OBEMBE VS OKELE (2001) 8 WRN 68.
However, for a document to be admissible under Section 91(1) of the Act proper foundation must be laid according to the circumstances of the case. Per SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: DUTY OF THE COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE
It is the duty of the trial court to evaluate evidence and make primary findings of fact. This duty, unless it is shown not to have been done according to laid down principles of law, an appellate court cannot interfere with such findings. See IRIRI VS. ERHURHOBORA (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 173) 252. IBANGA VS. USANGA (1982) 5 SC 103; WOLUCHEM VS. GUDI (1981) 5 SC 291; IGAGO VS. THE STATE (1999) 14 NWLR (PT 637) 1; ONUOHA VS THE STATE (1998) 5 NWLR (PT 548) 118 and AKINLOYE VS. EYIYOLA (1968) NMLR 92. Per SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A
