CORAM

---

Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal

Okon Efreti Abang Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

HENRY ILOKA

APPELLANTS 

---

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant (Henry Iloka) was standing trial at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, for the offense of Forgery. During his Examination-in-Chief, the Appellant sought to tender a public document titled “Technical Bid” which had been duly certified by the Federal Ministry of Environment. However, the lower Court (presided over by Justice U.P. Kekemeke) rejected the document’s admissibility on the ground that although it was duly certified, it failed to comply with Section 104 of the Evidence Act relating to payment of legal fees for certification. There was no evidence on the face of the document showing that payment had been made for the certification.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the Appellant sought and obtained leave to appeal. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on October 19, 2023, founded on one ground of appeal.

The appeal was based on the contention that the trial judge erred in rejecting a duly certified public document solely on grounds of non-payment of certification fees.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The ruling of the learned Trial Judge rejecting the document was set aside.

3. The Court ordered that: a) The Appellant shall pay the prescribed legal fees for the certification of the document in question; and b) The already duly certified document shall be admitted as an exhibit in the case.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether it was right for the Honourable Trial Court to have rejected the public document already duly certified, on the ground alone that there was no evidence of payment of legal fees for its certification as required under Section 104 of the Evidence Act.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS – REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID CERTIFICATION:

---

“Upon a careful consideration of the rejected Document, titled, Technical Bid at Pages 528 to 885 of the Record, this Court has observed on the face of the document, the following features: a) a stamp of the Federal Ministry of Environment; b) affixed by the Department of Procurement; c) Dated 12th March, 2020; d) subscribed by Okegbile M. A. (Chief Sec Asst.) for D (Proc); and e) the phrase: CERTIFIED TRUE COPY boldly inscribed on it.” – Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.

 

---

PAYMENT OF CERTIFICATION FEES – WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ACT MANDATES PROOF OF PAYMENT ON THE FACE OF THE DOCUMENT:

---

“Regarding the issue of payment of statutory fees for certification, it may be argued that the Public Officer who issued the Appellant with said Document having been satisfied with the Appellant’s compliance on payment of fees, duly certified and issued same, whether or not, the certification fee was stated on the face of the document itself. Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 reproduced above does not require that proof of payment of certification fees must be stated on the face of the document, the simple requirement being that the prescribed fees be paid for certification.” – Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.

 

---

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES – WHETHER PAYMENT IS A PRECONDITION TO CERTIFICATION:

---

“Payment of legal fee on application for a Certified True Copy is not part of the condition to make a document so certified, true copy. It is only a condition which must be fulfilled before the officer certified a document.’– Per OBADINA, J.C.A. (as cited by ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.)

 

---

PAYMENT OF CERTIFICATION FEES – WHEN PAYMENT CAN BE MADE:

---

“Section 104 (1) of the Evidence Act talks of giving the Certified True Copy to the person who demands for the Certified True Copy on payment but is silent on when payment shall be made and how the payment can be proved. However, Section 104 (2) of the Evidence Act which states: The certificate mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and by his official title and shall be sealed whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies suggest to me that payment shall be made at the time of issuance of the Certified True Copies. However, the Decision of the apex Court in TABIK INVESTMENT LTD VS GTB PLC (SUPRA) makes my thinking insignificant. If at the level of the Apex Court, the Court can still direct payment to be effected to enable the Court attach weight to the document in question, it can only mean that paying for the Certified True Copy even several days or weeks after obtaining the certified true copy does not make the document inadmissible.” – Per ABUNDAGA, J.C.A. (as cited by ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.)

 

---

PAYMENT OF CERTIFICATION FEES – REMEDIAL ACTION FOR NON-PAYMENT:

---

“This Court however directs that the Appellants should pay the required fees as provided in Section 11 (1) of the Evidence Act, to meet and satisfy the said provision. If is in the interest of justice that this be done as quickly as possible so that the hearing continues immediately.

This order is to meet the end of justice…”– Per MUKHTAR, J.S.C. (as cited by ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.)

 

---

REJECTION OF CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS – WHETHER REJECTION IS THE PROPER ORDER FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FEES:

---

“The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the trial Court because Exhibits A, B1, B2 and B3, Public Documents were not paid for. This is correct, but rejecting the Documents is rather harsh. The Learned Trial Judge ought to have ordered Counsel to ensure that the said documents are paid for, and after payment, the trial continues. There is a good deal of authority that Courts must strive to do substantial justice rather than relying on technicality to defeat justice.”– Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (as cited by ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.)

 

---

REGULARIZATION OF CERTIFICATION FEES – COURT’S DUTY TO ORDER REGULARIZATION:

---

“Since the Apex Court can direct payment to be made after certification, it therefore means the appropriate remedial action to take would be for Counsel to apply to regularize this anomaly, or for the Court to direct payment of the statutory fees, in a bid to regularize the already certified document. The most important part being that the document is duly certified, The Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the Exhibit tendered in evidence forms the core of the Appellant’s Defence, and make the proper order for regularization. This is to afford the Court an opportunity of having a holistic view of the case, and doing substantial justice to the parties.’ – Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.

 

---

TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF CERTIFICATION FEES – ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OF PAYMENT:

---

“The contemplation of the Evidence Act is payment of prescribed fees for certification. The Act did not state the time limit for this payment, or whether the receipt of payment must be stated on the face of the document. This, then is a purely administrative procedure and it therefore, lies in the hands of the Public Officer in custody of same, to prescribe fees, ensure payment and certify the document accordingly. Failure to do so, does not make the document so certified, any less a true copy, or affect its admissibility entirely.”– Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.

 

---

TTIMING OF PAYMENT FOR CERTIFICATION – ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS:

---

“The provisions of Section 104 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, did not state that payment of the prescribed legal fees for certification of public documents must be done before or after certification. What is required of a party that demands for a Certified True Copy of a Public Document is to make payment of the prescribed fees. The question of how and when the receipts for the certification are issued is purely administrative. Thus, in the case of TABIK INVESTMENT LTD. VS GTB (2011) 17 NWLR (PART 1276) PAGE 240, the ultimate Court of the land directed the Appellants who had initially failed to pay the fees for certification, to proceed and pay the required fees, and thereafter, the trial will commence.”– Per JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A. (as cited by ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.)

 

---

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:

---

“In any event, the law is that the admissibility of any documentary evidence is governed by three principles or conditions; a) whether the document is pleaded by the party(ies) to the proceedings; b) whether it is relevant to the subject matter of inquiry by the Court or Tribunal; and c) whether it is in admissible state.”– Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.

 

---

RELEVANCE AS PRINCIPLE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF PLEADED DOCUMENTS:

---

“It is firmly settled that the hallmark and guiding principle in the admissibility of pleaded documents is relevancy.” – Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.

 

---

JUDICIAL DISCRETION – REJECTION OF CERTIFIED DOCUMENT:

---

“From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the Learned Trial Judge was rather harsh in completely rejecting the exhibit tendered by the Appellant in his Defence, and failing to make the appropriate remedial order to regularize the already certified document.”– Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.

 

---

JUDICIAL DISCRETION – REMEDIAL APPROACH OVER REJECTION:

---

“As highlighted in the leading judgment, this is, indeed, an issue that has been settled by the Supreme Court in TABIK INVESTMENT LTD v GUARANTY TRUST BANK (2011) LPELR-3131(SC) at 21 – 22, paras. B – E. Suffice it for me to also state that the learned trial judge was harsh when he rejected the certified document, even when it has satisfied the requirements for admissibility in evidence. The learned judge ought to have ordered counsel to ensure that the certification fees are paid instead of rejecting the document.”– Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

 Evidence Act, 2011 (Sections 89(e), 90(1)(c), 102(a) and (b), 104, 105)

 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---