Legalpedia Citation: (2024-03) Legalpedia 46212 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At SOKOTO

Mon Mar 18, 2024

Suit Number: CA/S/131/2022

CORAM

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu Justice

Ebiowei Tobi Justice

Mohammed Danjuma Justice

PARTIES

1. PROFFESSOR SHEHU AHMED MAIGADI
2. MAL. SIDI MANNIR MAINASARA
3. MAL. SA’ADU SHEHU
4. ABUZAR YAHAYA DANIYA
5. MUBARAK ILIYASU JEGA
6. MUSTAPHA SANI SHINKAFI
7. ALIYU ABUBAKAR
8. NAZIR SHEHU
9. MUSTAPHA YUSUF
10. ZAYYANU LADAN (Suing For Themselves And On Behalf Of The Entire Shia Muslim Community In Sokoto State)

APPELLANTS

1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOKOTO STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants embarked on a procession within Sokoto City, and the Respondents dispatched their officers to forestall any likely breach of peace that may arise. Upon the procession reaching a point known as Madam Caro in Mabera Area, commotion broke out between the Appellants’ group and the people of the area, necessitating the intervention of the Respondents’ officers. The Appellants instituted action at the lower Court, claiming sundry reliefs against the Respondents on the ground that officers deployed to the place harassed the Appellants and gunned down some of their members. The learned trial Judge, in his findings, held that the Appellants failed to discharge the burden placed on them by law to prove their case. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellants filed this appeal.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1.Whether the learned trial Judge was not in error of law when he declined to ascribe probative value to exhibits central to the trial in a matter litigated on affidavit evidence on the grounds that they are computer-generated evidence?

2.Whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong in law when he admitted exhibit CP1, a document procured by the Respondents from the authorities of the Specialist Hospital, Sokoto, to decline exhibits A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, F1, and G1, which are medical certificates/reports issued by Doctor Hamza Abubakar of the said Hospital as the attendant Doctor to the various victims?

3.Whether the learned trial Judge, in his judgment delivered on the 17th May 2022, descended into the arena of the matter in propagation of the Respondents’ defense against the Appellants?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

EVIDENCE – THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE MADE DURING THE PENDENCY OF A SUIT OR IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION

In the case of AISIEN v. AKINNULI & ANOR (2012) LPELR – 9700 (CA), it was stated:

“Exhibit D2 was stamped in 2002. I have to agree with the view of learned 1st Respondent Counsel that it offends Section 90(3) of the Evidence Act being a document made in anticipation of litigation and during the pendency of the suit. See OGIDI vs. EGBA (1999)10 NWLR Pt. 621 Pg. 42”. Per OGUNWMIJU, JCA (P. 22, Paras. A-B).

Similarly, in the case of HALI ALIYU v. ALHAJI BELLO BULAKI (2019) LPELR – 46513 (CA), it was held:

“On the 2nd arm that Exhibits D and D1 were admitted in contravention of Section 83 (3) of the Evidence Act, the Respondent’s learned Counsel does not dispute the fact that the two documents were made after the institution of the action. His position is that the exhibits were only tendered to fortify the Respondent’s case otherwise, with or without the two exhibits, the fact which they seek to prove, the payment of the sum of One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only (N1,500,000.00) having been admitted by the Appellant, requires no further proof. Now, Section 83(3) prohibits the admissibility of any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish. The Respondent by his evidence in cross-examination admitted that it was when he filed the case that he wrote Exhibit D. There is no dispute that the institution of the suit predates the making of Exhibits D and D1. The purpose of making Exhibits D and D1, as per his reliefs, if for the recovery of the claimed monies inclusive of the amount stated in Exhibits D and D1 cannot be anything but to enhance his claim against the Appellant. The reason for making Exhibits D and D1 cannot be anything but to enhance his claim against the Appellant. Surely, the Respondent is a person interested in the outcome of the action. From these admitted facts, there can be no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that Exhibits D and D1 clearly were made when proceedings had begun involving the dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent respecting the Respondent’s claim in the pending suit. They were made for the purpose of proving the fact in issue. Clearly, Exhibits D and D1 offend Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act and are inadmissible in evidence.” Per WAMBAI, JCA (PP. 27-28, Paras. A-C). – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

ELECTRICALLY GENERATED DOCUMENT – WHETHER NON-CERTIFICATION OF AN ELECTRICALLY GENERATED DOCUMENT AFFECTS ITS ADMISSIBILITY OR DIMINISHES ITS PROBATIVE VALUE

In addition, regarding the contentious issue of computer-generated evidence, in ALH. MUHAMMAD KARAYE v. LEVI WIKE (2019) LPELR-49382 (SC), which directly involved electronically generated evidence without certification, the Apex Court explicitly stated that non-certification of an electrically generated document pursuant to Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011, neither affects its admissibility nor diminishes its probative value if such a document is attached to an affidavit in a matter litigated solely based on affidavit evidence. This was the situation before the trial Court in the case leading to this appeal. Similar decisions by this Court on the same subject matter can be found in PDP v. AMIN & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 50987 (CA) and BOKO v. NUNGWA & ORS (2018) LPELR- 45890 (CA). – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

JUDGE – THE DUTY AND CONDUCT OF A JUDGE IN ADJUDICATION

In law, Courts are prohibited from unnecessarily favoring one party over the other in a case before them. A Judge should refrain from getting involved in the conflict. The Court’s duty is to decide on cases based on the presentations made by the parties, not to construct a case for them. Refer to the cases of ONIAH v. ONYA (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 514 and CHABASAYA v. ANWASI (2010) LPELR – 839 (SC) for more insight.

A Judge is expected to maintain impartiality throughout the litigation process. Taking sides is not appropriate. The Judge’s sole concern should be interpreting the law in light of the evidence presented. When a Judge descends into the arena, they abandon their impartial position in the Court and become involved in the parties’ dispute. This is improper. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Evidence Act, 2011
3. Court of Appeal Rules 2016
4. African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act LFN2010
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT