COMMERCIAL BANK v MRS JOKE ISHOLA

CORAM

PARTIES

1. COMMERCIAL BANK (CREDIT LYONNAIS) NIG LTD

2. MRS BISI AYORINDE

APPELLANTS 

1. MRS JOKE ISHOLA

2. MR. DAUDA AZEEZ

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiffs/Respondents by a writ of summons sought the sum of N124, 820.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Four Thousand) being the sum paid by the 2nd Plaintiff into an account on behalf of the 1st Plaintiff which the Defendants have refused to credit with the said sum or in the alternative, an order compelling the Defendants to credit the account with the said sum. The Plaintiffs/Respondents also claimed the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as general and special damages for loss of business and inconvenience caused to them. At trial, the Respondent through the 1st Respondent sought to tender a photocopy of a bank teller in evidence but was objected to by the Appellants. The said teller was not admitted in evidence but was marked for the purposes of identification. Subsequently the Respondents sought to tender the document earlier marked as identification and same was admitted despite the objection raised by the Appellants. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellants have lodged the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the trial Court was right when it subsequently admitted in evidence a document earlier refused in evidence but admitted for the purpose of identification as “Exhibit ID 1?

2. Whether the trial Court was right when it admitted in evidence a photocopy of “Exhibit ID 1”, the proper foundation for the reception of the photocopy not having been laid?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DOCUMENT – WHETHER A DOCUMENT TENDERED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES CAN THEREAFTER BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS AN EXHIBIT

“It is therefore possible and indeed the usual practice for a document initially tendered for identification purposes to be later admitted in evidence as an exhibit”. PER C.E. IYIZOBA, JCA

DOCUMENT – A DOCUMENT TENDERED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND NOT ADMITTED AS AN EXHIBIT IS USELESS

“Where a document is tendered for identification and ends up never being admitted as an exhibit, it is a completely useless exercise as the court cannot make any use of it. It is as if it was never tendered. Ijeonyenani v A. C. B. Ltd (1997) 6 NWLR (PT. 508) 340 0 346: Cappa & D’Alberto Ltd v Akintilo. (2003) 9 NWLR (PT. 824) 49 @ 72”.

DOCUMENT – WHETHER A DOCUMENT TENDERED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES CAN THEREAFTER BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS AN EXHIBIT

“It is therefore possible and indeed the usual practice for a document initially tendered for identification purposes to be later admitted in evidence as an exhibit”.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act Cap 112 Laws of the Federation, 1990

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT