CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

EZENWA ONWUZURUIKE APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant who was aggrieved with a publication made by the Defendants/Respondents to the Area Commander of the Nigeria Police Owerri, Imo State, about himself and his son caused a writ of summons to be issued against the Defendants/Respondents.  The Plaintiff/Appellant alleged that his character was maliciously, falsely and deliberately defamed as the Defendants/Respondents in their letter accused him of aiding and abetting robbery, compounding the felony of robbery by assuring the release of robbery suspects, threating lives and plotting the murder of eminent persons in the community and also being a member of a secret cult. During the hearing of the matter, the  Plaintiff/Appellant’s counsel sought to tender before the Court a copy of the petition made by the Defendants/Respondents, whose counsel objected to the tendering of the document on the ground that it is not an original copy but a photocopy and therefore inadmissible as same was not certified. The document was withdrawn and the Plaintiff/Appellant’s counsel subsequently sought to tender the original copy of the petition which was also objected to. The trial court in overruling the objection held that the document sought to be tendered was not a public document so as to require certification and admitted the document as Exhibit “C”. Dissatisfied with the admission of the document, the Defendants/Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal where the decision of the trial court was set aside hence this instant appeal to the apex Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the learned justices of the court of appeal were right when they held that exhibit “c” a petition written to the police by a private citizen had transformed to a public document and thereby rejected the document?

2. Whether the learned justices of the court of appeal were right when they held that exhibit “D” admitted by the trial court without objection is inadmissible

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DOCUMENTS – WHETHER A LETTER SENT TO THE GOVERNOR OF A STATE IS A PRIVATE OR PUBLIC DOCUMENT

---

“Finally, in the recent case of Aromolaran vs Agoro (2014) 18 NWLR (pt. 1438} 153 this Court held that a letter written to the Governor of a State in his official capacity by a person who is not a government official, is public document because it is a public record kept in Nigeria of a private document which comes under the provisions of section 109(b) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 112 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (now section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011”. PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

---

PUBLIC DOCUMENT-WHAT DETERMINES THE STATUS OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT

---

“The document need not be the product of the authority as long as it forms part of its records. In my humble view, the origin or authorship of a document is not determinative of its status as a public document; and this is where the trial Court erred for failure to distinguish the source or authorship of a document from what it eventually becomes”. PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.

---

PUBLIC DOCUMENT- WHETHER A PRIVATE PETITION SENT TO THE POLICE IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT OR PRIVATE DOCUMENT

---

“In the case of Tabik Investment Ltd v. G.T.B. (2011) All FWLR (pt. 602} 1592 at 1607 this Court held that a private petition sent to the police, as in the instant case, formed part of the record of the police and consequently a public document within the provisions of section 109 of the Evidence Act. The court held as follows:-
By the provision of section 318(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and section 18(1) of the interpretation Act, a police officer is a public officer and so all documents from the custody of the police, especially documents to be used in court are public documents.” PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

---

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS – WHAT ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS?

---

“Section 109 of the Evidence Act, Cap 112, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria {now section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011} provides, inter alia, as follows:-
“The following documents are public documents:-
(a) Documents forming the official Acts or records of official acts-
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere.
(b) Public records kept in Nigeria of private documents.” PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT-WHETHER ADMISSIBILTY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT IS GOVERNED BY THE EVIDENCE ACT OR RULES OF COURT

---

“What is on ground is a clear manifestation of seeking refuge from what cannot be a shelter. Order 25 Rule 13 of the Imo State High Court Rules is not available for the purpose the appellant is clamoring as the document being a public one its admissibility is governed by the Evidence Act and not the Rule of court cited. Again to be said is that it was not late to raise the objection, the non-traverse in pleading not withstanding as the objection could be raised at any stage even on appeal. The essential thing is that what is not admissible would not cease to be due to the lateness of its being brought to the fore. I rely on John v State (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 607) 639 at 650 – 657”. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

---

PROOF BY PRIMARY EVIDENCE – EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT DOCUMENTS MUST BE PROVED BY PRIMARY EVIDENCE.

---

“It is settled law that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in certain circumstances provided under section 97 of the Evidence Act. The exceptions where secondary evidence may be given and admitted of the existence condition or contents of the original document are when:-
(a) the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person legally bound to produce it and does not produce it despite being served with notice as stated in section 98 of the Act or the original is a public document within the meaning of section 109 of the Evidence Act, supra, in which case the secondary evidence admissible is a certified true copy.” PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

---

CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT- DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A DOCUMENT NEEDS CERTIFICATION

---

“It should be noted that the issue as to whether a document needs certification relates to admissibility of secondary evidence of the original document. Under the provisions of section 94(1) of the Evidence Act the original of a document is what is known as primary evidence while a copy of the original document is known as secondary evidence of the original -see section 97(1) supra.” PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

.

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act 2011 (as amended)

3. High Court Rules of Imo State 1988

4.  Interpretation Act

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT