Advertise with us
HomeNewsMy One Penny (14) Admissibility of Computer Generated Documents By Oseme Peremene...

My One Penny (14) Admissibility of Computer Generated Documents By Oseme Peremene Anthony, Esq.

- Advertisement -
Advertise with us

1. KUBOR & ANOR v. DICKSON & ORS (2012) LPELR-9817(SC)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“Granted, for the purpose of argument, that Exhibits “D” and “L” being computer generated documents or e-documents downloaded from the internet are not public documents whose secondary evidence are admissible only by certified true copies then it means that their admissibility is governed by the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
Section 84 (1) provides thus:
“(i) In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the condition in sub-section (2) of this section is satisfied in relation to the Statement and the computer in question?.
The conditions are:-
(a) that the documents containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process the information for the purpose of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody whether corporate or not or by any individual;
(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;
(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or if not that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that point or that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) that the information contained in the Statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.
There is no evidence on record to show that appellants in tendering Exhibits “D” and “L” satisfied any of the above conditions. In fact they did not as the documents were tendered and admitted from the bar. No witness testified before tendering the documents so there was no opportunity to lay the necessary foundations for their admission as e-documents under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
No wonder therefore that the lower Court held, at page 838 of the record thus:-
“A party that seeks to tender in evidence a computer generated document needs to do more than just tendering same from the bar. Evidence in relation to the use of the computer must be called to establish the conditions set out under Section 84(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011.” 

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 1

2. DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“Section 84(1) and (2) Evidence Act provides:-
“84 (1) In any proceeding a statement contained in document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are
(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purpose of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;
(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;
(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities”.
The correct interpretation to be given to Section 84 of the Evidence Act where electronically generated document is sought to be demonstrated is that such electronically generated evidence must be certified and must comply with the preconditions laid down in Section 84(2). See: Kubor v. Dickson (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 676) 392 at 429. In the instant case PW51 made a written deposition at pages 349-351 of the Record which he adopted at page 353. The certification as well as the electronically generated evidence in issue, the DVD in question, were admitted in evidence as Exhibits P42A and P42B respectively in support of the pleadings. Having met the pre-conditions, there is no impediment in the Evidence Act that would prevent the playing or demonstrating the contents of the already identified DVD on any computer such as the laptop, projector and screen.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 2

3. OMISORE & ANOR v. AREGBESOLA & ORS (2015) LPELR-24803(SC)

_ – Whether only internet-generated documents are caught by the admissibility requirements of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011_

”As noted above, the main plank of the argument of the first and second cross respondents, with regard to the second issue above, was that only internet-generated documents are caught by the admissibility requirements of Section 84 of the 2011 Evidence Act. With profound respect, this argument is untenable, S. Mason (ed), Electronic Evidence: Disclosure, Discovery and Admissibility, (London: LexisNexis, Butterworths, 2007) passim; H. M. Malek (ed), Phipson on Evidence (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2010) (Seventeenth Edition) passim; R v. Shepherd (1993) 1 All ER 225, 231 [a decision of the defunct House of Lords]; Kubor v. Dickson [2013] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534, 577- 578. Even the very chapeau or opening statement in Section 84(1) contradicts this submission. The relevant phrase here is “a statement contained in a document produced by the computer…” Interestingly, the draftsperson did not leave the meaning of the word “computer” to conjecture. In Section 258(1), the Act defines “computer” to mean “any device for storing and processing information, and any reference to information being derived from other information is a reference to its being derived from it by calculation, comparison or any other process.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 3

4. YESUFU v. ACB LTD (1976) LPELR-3525(SC)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents under the English Civil Evidence Act, 1968_

“…in England in the Civil Evidence Act 1968. Section 5 subsections (1) and (2) of that Act provide that in any civil proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer would, subject to rules of court, be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that certain conditions are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question. These conditions are: (a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purpose of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by any body, whether corporate or not, or by any individual; (b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the documents or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 4

5. DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“Section 84 (2) outlines the conditions for admission of “a statement contained in a document produced by a computer”. The two key words in Section 84 of the Evidence Act appear to me to be “statement” and “document”. What is a statement and what is a document? A statement, in a general sense, is an allegation, a declaration of matters of fact, etc. See Black’s Law Dictionary Special
Deluxe fifth attestation, avowal, etc. See Burton’s Legal Thesaurus Fourth Edition page 993. On the other hand, document is an instrument on which is recorded information or facts. It contains statements. A document is any physical embodiment of information or ideas such as letter, contract, receipt, a book of account, a blue print or an X-ray plate. See Strico v. Cotto 87 Misc. 2nd 636, 324 NYS 2nd 483, 486. In view of the above definitions of statement and document, the DVD, Exhibit P42B, in so far as it is used to record and store information is a document and the information therein contained is a statement within the intendment of Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
I agree with the learned Silk leading for the appellant that the DVD, Exhibit P42B is a manufactured product. However, once any Information is recorded or stored therein through the instrumentality of a computer it becomes a document and the information so recorded or stored is a statement “contained in a document produced by a computer” within the meaning of Section 84 of the Evidence Act. The certificate, Exhibit P42A qualified the document (DVD) Exhibit P42B for admission
in evidence and it was so admitted and marked accordingly .See; Kubor v. Dickson (2013) All FWLR (Pt.675) 392 at 429. The point upon which the parties joined issue is the assertion of the appellant, denied by the respondent, that Section 84 of the Evidence Act requires another certificate in form of Exhibit P42A to produce the “statement contained in the document produced by a computer”. It has to be emphasized that in admitting the DVD, Exhibit P42B, what is really admitted is “a statement contained” in the DVD which is document produced by a computer. See Section 84 (1) of the Act. The DVD, Exhibit P42B and its contents are akin to non-computer document or a document properly so called. A document properly so called is admitted in evidence for the Court or Tribunal to see and consider its contents (or statements contained therein). Once a document properly so called has been admitted in evidence, there is no condition to be satisfied before the Court or Tribunal can make use of the statement contained therein. In the same vein, once the computer generated document has been admitted in evidence, having satisfied all the
requirements of Section 84 (2) of the Act, the statement therein contained can be produced for the Court or Tribunal by the means of any functional computer without a certificate in form of Exhibit P42A. I see no such requirement in the various provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
In my humble view, producing the statement contained in a document produced by a computer which has been admitted in evidence is the same thing as providing the Court or Tribunal a document properly so called which has been admitted in evidence for the Court or Tribunal to read. Once the conditions for admission of the document have been satisfied and the document, be it one produced by a computer or one properly so called, admitted, there can be no other requirement before the Court or Tribunal can make use of the statement contained in the document.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 5

6. DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“Section 84 of the Evidence Act must now be examined. It reads:-
“84 (1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are –
(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;
(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;
(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary cause of these activities.
84 (4): In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this Section a certificate –
(a) Identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) Giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document may be appropriate for the Purpose of showing that the document was produced by computer;
(c) Dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) above relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the case may be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of this Subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. A diligent examination of Section 84 of the Evidence Act reveals that the Section does not say that the computer or electronic device used in playing the DVD in open Court requires certification, rather it is only the computer that produces the DVD – Exhibit ‘P42B’ that requires certification. Section 84 in the Evidence Act is all about ascertaining the authenticity of the device from which the exhibit was produced. Exhibit ‘P42B’, electronically generated evidence was admitted in evidence as an exhibit after the Tribunal was satisfied that there was compliance with the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, (See Exhibit ‘P42A’). After the DVD was admitted as Exhibit ‘P42B’ compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act is no longer required as that threshold had been well and timely passed once the DVD becomes an exhibit. The examination of the DVD (an exhibit) Includes playing it, and the DVD must be examined at some stage. In other climes the DVD would have been played by the Courts device and the Courts device would not require certification. The Refusal by the Tribunal to play the DVD to my mind was wrong. An exhibit, documentary evidence is a thing relied on by the party producing it for the sole purpose of strengthening his case. Once such evidence supports oral testimony such oral testimony becomes more credible. See Omoregbe v. Lawani 1990 3-4 SC p.117: Kimdey and Ors v. M G of Gongola State 1988 2 NWLR R/77 p. 473. The Petitioner must be allowed to present and ventilate his case within the confines of the law and procedural requirements. Playing the DVD (Exhibit ‘P42B’) in Open Court is very much within the standards required.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 6

7. DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“True, indeed, the lower Court was right in its view that the trial Tribunal misapplied the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act. The Section provides as follows:
84(1): In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
(Italics supplied for emphasis).
The conditions mentioned in Section 84(1) (supra) for the admissibility of such statements produced by a computer are contained in Section 84 (2): (2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are
(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;
(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents, and
(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.
According to Section 84(4): (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this Section, a certificate (a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; or
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer; or (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) above relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the case may be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of this Subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. Subsection 5 provides that: (5) For the purpose of this Section – (a) Information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied to it in any appropriate form and whether it is supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; (b) Where, in the course of activities carried on by any individual or body, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purpose of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) A document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. [Italics supplied for emphasis] It is clear from its ipssissima verba that Section 84 (supra) lays down the conditions for the admissibility of statements produced by a “computer:” which is defined in Section 258 of the Act to mean “any device for storing and processing information, and any reference to information being derived from other information is a reference to its being derived from it by calculation, comparison or any other process. In effect, it is Section 84 of the Evidence Act that lays down the conditions for the admissibility of electronically generated evidence, Kubor v. Dickson [2013] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534, 577-578; Omisore and Anor v. Aregbesola & Ors. [2015] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205, 295 and not Section 258 of the Act, the definition Section, as erroneously, contended by Mr. Oyetibo, SAN for the Appellant. As shown above, the DVD in question was admitted in evidence as exhibit P42B. Thus, in this appeal, what is in issue in not even the admissibility of evidence, but the narrow question whether Section 84 (supra) deals with the additional requirement of certification of gadgets for playing or demonstrating an already admitted piece of evidence in open Court. Both the trial Tribunal and Oyetibo, SAN argued in favour of such an additional certificate. However, that cannot be.
Interpreting provisions similarly worded like Section 84 (supra), the defunct House of Lords [per Lord Griffiths] had this to say in R v. Shepherd [1993] 1 All ER 225, 231, paragraphs A-C, [HL]: Documents produced by computers are an increasingly common feature of all businesses and more and more people are becoming familiar with uses and operation. Computers vary immensely in their complexity and in the operations they perform. The nature of the evidence to discharge the burden of showing that there has been no improper use of the computer and it was operating properly will inevitably vary from case to case. The evidence must be tailored to suit the needs of the case. I suspect that it will very rarely be necessary to call an expert and that in the vast majority of cases it will be possible to discharge the burden by calling a witness who is familiar with the operation of the computer in the sense of knowing what the computer is required to do and who can say that it is doing it properly. [italics supplied for emphasis] In actual fact, Section 84 (supra) consecrates two methods of proof, either by oral evidence under Section 84(1) and
(2) or by a certificate under Section 84(4). In either case, the conditions stipulated in Section 84(2) must be satisfied. However, this is subject to the power of the Judge to require oral evidence in addition to the certificate. As the eminent Lord Griffith explained in the said case [R v. Shepherd]: … Proof that the computer is reliable can be provided in two ways: either by calling oral evidence or by tendering a written certificate… subject to the power of the Judge to require oral evidence. It is understandable that if a certificate is to be relied upon it should show on its face that it is signed by a person who from his job description can confidently be expected to be in a person to give reliable evidence about the operation of the computer. This enables the defendant to decide whether to accept at its face value or to ask the Judge to require oral evidence which can be challenged in cross examination… [Italics supplied for emphasis]
In the instance appeal, there has been no suggestion that the evidence of PW51 did not satisfy the above conditions. Indeed, from his written deposition, which he adopted at the
trial Tribunal, the witness would appear to have more than a passing acquaintance with the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act (supra). Hear what he said: 6. … I used my official Dell Desktop System with serial number 25TF85J to produce a DVD containing the said visual, which I have in my possession to tender in evidence. 7. …

  1. That all the events mentioned herein were duly recorded by the Company’s Camera man, Pedro Innocent, using our official cameras, stored in DVD and kept in the custody of the Company’s Library Unit. I have the DVD here with me and with the permission of the Honourable Tribunal I can play the contents of the DVD with the aid of a laptop computer and a projector. 9. That this my statement, the video and other computer-generated information in the DVD referred to in this statement herein were produced by the computers regularly used in our office for storing and processing information during the material period under consideration.
  2. That I confirm that over the period of December, 2015 till date there was a regular supply of information of the kind contained in the said computers in the ordinary course of activities in our office. I also confirm that during this period, the said computers were operating properly and that if during the periods the system did not work properly, it did not affect the production of the said video or the accuracy of their contents. And I also confirm that the information contained in the DVD were produced or derived from information supplied to the computers in the ordinary course of our activities in the office.
  3. That in further compliance with the requirements of the law, I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the video clips contained in the DVD were duly and legitimately recorded by the Company’s Camera Man using a video camera with the brand name JVC 600 using memory card. At the end of the recording, the contents of the memory card were transferred to DVD in the course of normal activities in the company. A separate certificate of identification signed by me is attached to the said DVD.
  4. That I confirm that I am computer literate and participated in all stages of recording, production and packaging of the DVD sought to be tendered in the proceeding.
    [Italics supplied for emphasis]
    As shown above, the said DVD was admitted in evidence. Mr. Hon. SAN’s application, at the trial Tribunal was that the witness be allowed to play the said DVD in open Court. It is rather strange that Oyetibo, SAN sought to resist the attempt to play the said DVD at the hearing of the Tribunal. As the lower Court, rightly, observed: … when it is an electronically-generated document which has been admitted in evidence, upon fulfilling all pre-conditions and it is not taken as read by consent, then it ought to be demonstrated or played to prove the facts alleged. Otherwise, it remains a closed or ‘sleeping’ document, which is unusable and which need not have been brought before the trial Court or Tribunal in the first place as it would merely amount to clutter… Pages 573-574 of the record.
    I, entirely, endorse this view. The application to play the DVD had nothing to do with its admissibility (in any event, at that stage it was already in evidence). It rather rest on an, entirely, different juridical postulate which this Court explained in A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura [2016] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1505) 316, 343; Okereke v. Umahi & Ors [2016] 2-3 SC (Pt. 1) 1, 50. According to this Court [per Nweze, JSC] in A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura (supra) pages 343-344:
    This prescription [that parties have a duty to link their documents with their averments in their pleadings] rests on the adversarial nature of our jurisprudence which we inherited from the common law. It is, therefore, the impregnable juridical postulate of our adversarial jurisprudence that prohibits a Judge from embarking on an inquisitorial examination of documents outside the Court room. A fortiori, it is anathema for a Judge to be allowed to act on what he discovered from such a document in relation to an issue when that was not supported by evidence or was not brought to the notice of the parties to be agitated in the adversarial procedure. The authorities on this point are many.
    We shall only cite one or two of them here, Ivienagbor v. Bazuaye [1999] 9 NWLR (Pt. 620) 552; (1999) 6 SCNJ 235, 243; Owe v. Oshinbajo (1965) 1 All NLR 72 at 75; Bornu Holding Co. Ltd. v. Alhaji Hassan Bogoco (1971) 1 All NLR 324 at 333; Alhaji Onibudo & Ors v. Alhaji Akibu & Ors [1982] 7 SC 60, 62; Nwaga v. Registered Trustees Recreation Club (2004) FWLR (Pt. 190) 1360, 1380-1381; Jalingo v. Nyame (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) 538; Ugochukwu v. Co-operative Bank [1996] 7 SCNJ 22. It is against this background that viva voce depositions and the entries in documents and, indeed assertions relating to entries in such documents in electoral materials are, invariably, tested under cross-examination, Ivienagbor v. Bazuaye (supra).
    Unarguably, therefore, Oyetibo, SAN’s objection, inadvertently, railroaded the trial Tribunal into an unwarranted exercise of re-writing the requirements of Section 84 (supra). As, already shown above, the Tribunal reasoned that:When a document is sought to be given in evidence, and also to be demonstrated in Court the means of production of which document fall within the definition of computer in the Evidence Act, then two different steps and stages are involved: (3) the one used to store the information and;
    (4) the one to be used to retrieve and if need be demonstrate or play them out are involved. Both categories of computers must be certified as required by Section 84 [supra]. As I had said earlier, Exhibit P42A covers only the computers used in production of exhibit P42B – the DVD, but not the laptop computer and projector now sought to be used to retrieve and play out its content. To that extent therefore in respect of both last two documents (the laptop and projector) the provisions of Section 84 (supra) has (sic) not been complied with. Application to play the DVD – exhibit P42B is accordingly refused.
    [page 358; italics for emphasis] With profound respect, this is a most curious piece of fallacious reasoning. Indeed, contrary to the view of the trial Tribunal, Section 84 (supra) does not ordain any such “two different steps and stages.” Contrariwise, the provisions of the said Section 84 govern the admissibility of statements produced from computers. These provisions are, similarly, worded like Section 65B (1) and (2) of the applicable Act in India. Dealing with these provisions, the Court reasoned [a reasoning I take liberty to adopt in this judgment] in State v. Mohd. Afzal 107 (2003) DLT 385 that: Electronic record produced [from computers on magnetic tapes (hard discs)] has to be taken in the form of a print out. Subsection (1) of Section 65B [the equivalent of Section 84(1) of the Nigerian Act] makes admissible without further proof, in evidence, print out of an electronic record contained on a magnetic tape subject to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in the Section. The conditions are mentioned in Subsection (2) [this is the equivalent of Section 84(2) of the Nigerian Act]. Thus compliance with Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 65B [that is, Section 84(1) and (2) of the Nigerian Act] is enough to make admissible and prove electronics record. [Italics supplied for emphasis] As a corollary, Bello, JSC (as he then was; later C.J.N.) in Onibudo v. Akibu (supra) explained the rationale for the requirement of demonstrating documents in open Court. Hear His Lordship:
    It needs to be emphasized that the duty of a Court is to decide between the parties on the basis of what has been demonstrated, tested, canvassed and argued in Court. It is not the duty of a Court to do cloistered justice by making an inquiry into the case outside even if such inquiry is limited to examination of documents which were in evidence, when the documents had not been examined in Court and their examination out of Court disclosed matters that had not been brought out and exposed to test in Court and were not such matters that, at least, must have been noticed in Court… [page 211, italics supplied for emphasis]. Invariably, this requirement of testing such documents in open Court is, inextricably, tied to the question of their authenticity: a post admissibility requirement which relate to the weight attachable to them. It is in this context that Section 34(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that:
    34(1) In estimating the weight, if any, to be attached to a statement rendered admissible as evidence by this Act, regard shall be had to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement, and in particular
    (a) …
    (b) In the case of a statement contained in a document produced by a computer –
    (i) The question whether or not the information which the statement contained, reproduces or is derived from, was supplied to it, contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the facts dealt with in that information, and
    (ii) The question whether or not any person concerned with the supply of information to that computer or with the operation of that computer or any equipment by means of which the document containing the statement was produced by it, had any incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts. [Italic supplied] My Lords, permit me to draw attention to the evident affinity between the italicized expressions above with the expressions in Section 84(2) (a) (b) (c) and (d) which are the conditions that must be satisfied before “a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible,” Section 84(1) (supra). In effect, although a document produced from a computer may cross the admissibility threshold in Section 84 (1) (2) and (4), it may still not be accorded the requisite weight if the “accuracy” conditions in Section 34(1) (b) (i) and (ii) are not complied with. This, then, underscores the cogency demonstrating such documents [like exhibit P42B] in open Court so as to afford the proponent of such a document the opportunity of not linking them with their averments in their pleadings and evidence on records, A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura (supra) 343; Okereke v. Umahi & Ors (supra) 50; but more importantly with a view to discharging the requirement which would facilitate the Court’s attachment of weight to them. On the other hand, their demonstration in open Court would, equally, afford the opponents the opportunity of testing and contesting their accuracy in the usual adversarial method of cross examination, Onibudo v. Akibu (supra).”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 7

8. DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“My understanding of the carefully reading of Section 84 (1) 2(a)- (d) 3(a) – (d) 4 (a) – (c) I cannot find the requirement for the certification of the computer or projector to be used in playing the DVD in open Court. For the proper understanding of my stance on this issue Section 84 is reproduced as follows:-
“84 (1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question
(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are:
(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not by any individual;
(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of these activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;
(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduced or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.
(3) Where over a period the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in Subsection (2)(a) of this Section was regularly performed by computers, whether-
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period;
(b) by different computes operating in succession over that period
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combination of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this Section as constituting a single computer; and references in his Section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this Section, a certificate.
(a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purposes of showing that the document was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) above relate; and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the case may be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for purpose of this Subsection, it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purpose of this Subsection-
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied to it in any appropriate form and whether it is supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) where, in the course of activities carried on by any individual or body, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced directly of (without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. (Emphasis mine)”
From the above provisions, it is crystal clear that it is only with respect to the computer that “produces” the document in this case, the DVD (Exhibit P42B) that ought to be certified. The Court below lucidly expressed the true purport of the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 when it found on page 581 of the record of appeal thus:
“It is glaring that Exhibit P42B is tied to and has symbiotic relationship with Exhibit P42A, being the certificate of compliance required by law. Howbeit, the dire need or certification cannot be extended to the laptop and or projector, with which the contents of Exhibits P42B is to be retrieved, demonstrated, displayed and or played back. The former is akin to or represents the production stage while the latter constitutes the consumption stage. Authentication or quality control is essentially warranted at the production level and not the point of consumption. Finished products are consumed by customers at large once the price is affordable.” The words of this Section are clear and unambiguous and I would not give any other interpretation, outside the clear words See AROMOLARAN v. AGORO (2014) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1438) 153 at 174 (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt. 766) 574 at p. 597. FBN v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444 at 483. In this appeal the evidence of PW51 satisfies the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011, he deposed to in paragraphs 7 – 11 of his Written Deposition on pages 350 – 351 of the Record of Appeal to that effect. He stated inter alia thus:
“I used my official Dell Desktop Computer System with serial number 25TF85J to produce a DVD containing the said visual, which I have in my possession to tender in evidence …”
When PW51 entered the witness box on 10th May, 2016, he brought in Court the DVD he had produced using the computers vividly described in his written deposition. I am of the firm opinion that since Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 has limited its application to “production” of computer evidence and not “playing” or demonstrating of it in open Court. The literal rule of interpretation ought to be invoked by the Trial Tribunal to permit Exhibit P42B to be played before it.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 8

9. DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)

_ – Interpretation of Section 84 of the Evidence Act as regards condition for the admissibility of electronic documents_

“For ease of reference, I reproduce hereunder the relevant paragraphs of Section 84(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. 84. (1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are;
(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not or by any individual;
(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of these activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;
(c) That throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part or that period was not such as to affect the production of the document of the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.
(3) Where over a period the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in Subsection (2) (a) of this Section was regularly performed by computers, whether –
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period;
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combination of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this Section as constituting a single computer; and references in this Section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) in any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this Section, a certificate –
(a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device
involve in the production of that documents as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the maters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) above relate; and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the case may be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for purpose of this Subsection, it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purpose of this Subsection –
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied to it in any appropriate form and whether it is supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) where, in the course of activities carried on by any individual or body, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced directly or (without human intervention) by means of any appropriated equipment.” (Emphasis supplied by me)
Section 258(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides: “258. (1) In this Act –
“documents” includes –
(b) an disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced from it; and
(c) any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced from it.”
I agree with learned counsel for the 1st-2nd respondents that while Section 258(1) (b) & (c) in particular provides a general definition of what constitutes a document, Section 84 makes specific provisions for the admissibility of documents produced by a computer. Certainty the specific provision relating to admissibility must be given priority over the general provision. The rationale for this approach is that the specific provision will be deemed to have anticipated the issue, as against the general provision. See: Kraus Thompson Organization v. N.I.P.S.S. (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 901) All FWLR (Pt. 720) 1247; Akpan v. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 27) 225. The principle is “generalibus specialia dorogant”: special things derogate from general things. The law is settled that in the interpretation of Statutes, where the words are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. See: Ibrahim v. Barde (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 474) 513 @ 577 B-C; Ojokolobo v. Alamu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 377 @ 402 F-N. The exception is where to do so would lead to absurdity. See: Toriola v. Williams (1982) 7 SC 27 @ 46; Nnonye v. Anyichie (2005) 1 SCNJ 306 @ 316. Where an interpretation will result in breaching the object of the Statute, the Court would not lend its weight to such an interpretation. See: Amalgamated Trustees Ltd. v. Associated Discount House Ltd. (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1056) 118. Now a careful consideration of Section 84 reproduced infra would reveal
that the Section is concerned with the manner in which the electronic evidence sought to be relied upon is produced. The Section seeks to ensure the authenticity of the document and the integrity of the procedure used to bring it into being. Section 84 (2) (a) for example, refers to the document containing the statement sought to be relied upon having been produced by a computer during a period over which the said computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried out over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not. The Sub-sections refer to the storing or processing of information by the computer during the period when the document sought to be tendered was produced as well as the working condition of the computer, combination of computers, different computers operating in succession or different combinations of computers operating in succession during that period. Section 84(4) sets out clearly what a certificate of identification must contain where it is sought to give a statement (electronically-generated) in evidence. From the facts of this
case, the 1st and 2nd respondents fully complied with the provision. The statement on oath of PW51 contained depositions of all the material facts relating to the procurement of Exhibit P42B. He tendered the relevant certificate (Exhibit P42A) along with the DVD (Exhibit P42B) produced with the use of the computer. At the stage, the 1st and 2nd respondents had done all that was necessary for the admissibility of Exhibit P42B and it was duly admitted in evidence. By the certificate, the 1st and 2nd respondents had established not only the authenticity of the document but the integrity of the process that produced it.
There is nothing in Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 that places a further requirement on the party seeking to rely on electronic evidence to certify the gadgets to be used in demonstrating what had already been admitted, as contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant. In my view, the interpretation suggested would certainly lead to absurdity. The computer or projector to be used to demonstrate the admitted evidence has no part to play in the production of the evidence or its authenticity. I therefore agree with the lower Court that having fulfilled all the pre-conditions for the admissibility of Exhibit P42B, which had not been taken as read, it ought to be demonstrated in open Court for the necessary weight to be attached to it. After all, it has been held in numerous decisions of this Court that documents must not be dumped on the Court but must be demonstrated by linking them to specific aspects of party’s case. See: C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 665) 365 @ 385 SC; Iniama v. Akpabio (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1116) 296 @ 299-300 D-B; A.P.G.A. v. Al-Makura (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1505) 316 @ 345. As rightly observed by the lower Court, the essence of the provisions of Section 84 (2) of the Evidence Act would be defeated, if after duly complying therewith, the party relying on the admitted electronically generated evidence is precluded from demonstrating same before the Court in order to prove his case. The trial Tribunal erred in reading into Section 84 of the Evidence Act pre-conditions that it did not contain. The decision was rightly set aside by the Court below.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 9

10. YESUFU v. ACB LTD (1976) LPELR-3525(SC)

_ – Interpretation of Section 37 of the Evidence Act as to admissibility of a statement of account generated from a voucher_

“Could the statement of account have been admitted under Section 37 of the Act? The section reads: “37. Entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.” The section was considered by this Court in Esso West Africa Inc. v. T. Oyegbola (1969) 1 N.M.L.R.194 where we observed at page 198 as follows: “Besides, Section 37 of the Evidence Act does not require the production of ‘books’ of account but makes entries in such books relevant for purposes of admissibility. The evidence describes the cards sought to be tendered as ledger cards, meaning that they are cards from a ledger or constitute a ledger. The law cannot be and is not ignorant of modern business methods and must not shut its eyes to the mysteries of the computer. In modern times, reproduction or inscriptions on ledgers or other documents by mechanical process are common place and Section 37 cannot therefore only apply to ‘books of account’… … so bound and the pages … not easily replaced.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 10

*11. SHAYE v. C.O.P *

_ – Instances where computer generated documents will be admissible_

“On Exhibit E1 – E8, which were the photographs, the allegation was that they were admitted in error being computer generated documents. Let me explain briefly here that by Section 258 of the Evidence Act, 2011, “Documents” include books, maps, plans, drawings, photographs and also includes any matter expresses or described upon any substance by means of letter, figures or marks or by more than one of these means, intended to be used or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter”. When a document is sought to be admitted, the primary consideration is whether it is relevant. The photographs were taken for purposes of identification and to corroborate the fact that the deceased died as alleged. In the instant case, the issue of death of the deceased was well splashed and known in the community. The nature of death was such that they had to be exhumed from their shallow graves for the photographs to be shot of them. These photos are not only relevant; they are of high probative value. These photographs Exhibit E – E8 were necessary and the lower Court correctly accepted them as Exhibits. One cannot see any fault in the admission of Exhibits E to E8 in this case.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 11

12. RITE TIME AVIATION & TRAVELS SERVICES LTD & ANOR v. SPRING BANK PLC (2018) LPELR-46992(CA)

_ – Instances where computer generated documents will be admissible_

“I am of the view that a computer generated statement of account is admissible if it is in substantial compliance with the provisions of Sections 89 and 90 of the evidence Act 2011.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 12

*13. C.O.P BENUE STATE COMMAND & ORS v. DOOLOR *

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“It has been established firmly that a computer – generated document can only be admitted in evidence upon compliance with the requirements of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Thus a party that seeks to tender in evidence such a document must lead evidence to satisfy the requirements of Section 84 (2). See Kubor V Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534 and Omisore V Aregbesola (2015) NWLR (Pt. 1482).”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 13

14. DICKSON v. SYLVA & ORS (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)

_ – Whether when computer evidence is admitted certification of the instrument used for its demonstration should be produced_

“As rightly submitted by the learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondent, the law is well settled that when a particular Section of the law has many Subsections, all such Subsections must be read together for purpose of discovering the intention of the lawmaker. See Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 353) 3 at 200 SC and Oyeniyi v. Adeleke (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 476) 1902 at 1912. Also and as rightly submitted by the said respondent’s counsel, where a process of production of a computer document has been completed, the concept of playing or transmission of such document cannot amount or be equated to the actual production thereof.
At page 567 of the record of appeal, the Lower Court for instant had this to say:-
“It is germane to note that all through the gamut of Section 84, no distinct specific provisions were made stating conditions for the playing or demonstrating an already admitted electronically generated evidence before the trial Court or Tribunal.
As rightly submitted by learned silk for the appellants, if there was an omission in this regard, it is certainly not part of judicial adjudication to supply it;” It is pertinent to state that the position taken by the Lower Court is in accordance to settled principle
laid down by this Court on the interpretation of Statutes wherein the following guide lines are clearly spelt out that:-
1) It is the cardinal principle of law that a Court cannot, while interpreting a Statute, embark on judicial legislation, namely lawmaking, See: Akintokun v. L.P.D.C. (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 427 SC.
2) It is also the law that a Court ought to expound and not to expand the law; that is to say it is to decide what the law is and not what it ought to be; it should tow the path of objectivity and not be subjective. See Amadi v. INEC (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 595 SC.
3) It has been held also that a judge cannot and should not supply omissions in a Statute. See Governor of Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2012) 4 SC. 1 In a nutshell, the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act is complete and should be given its ordinary meaning of interpretation of what the law is, which the trial Tribunal had failed to do in this case. In plethora of decided cases, this Court has held times without number and warned parties against the dumping of documents on the Tribunal. See the case of CPC v. INEC (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 665) 364 at 385 SC. Also Paragraphs 46(4) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended is where documents admitted in evidence are either read or taken as read. In citing the case of Kubor v. Dickson (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 676) 393 at 429, the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents laid emphasis on the Judgment of this Court which decided on the admissibility of computer evidence wherein their Lordship quoted in extensor the provisions of Section 84(1) of the Evidence Act, and proceeded to lay down the procedure guiding admissibility thereon. There is no law stating that when computer evidence is already admitted, another certification of the instrument used for its demonstration in open Court should again be produced. The absence of such cannot be imported with a view to defeat the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, thereof.
The law is explicit that where an interpretation of a Statute would defeat the cause of justice, the Court should refrain there from. See Ikuepenikan v. State (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 788) 919 at 959 a decision of this Court; on the same principle Ogbuagu, JSC also stressed the foregoing rule of Interpretation in the case of Elabanjo v. Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76 at 138.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 14

15. KUBOR & ANOR v. DICKSON & ORS (2012) LPELR-15364(CA)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“84(1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) of this section are-
(a) That the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by any body, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;
(b) That over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;
(c) That throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) That the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.”
Section 84(2) provides for the conditions to be satisfied in relation to the statement and computer from which the documents sought to be admitted were produced. A party that seeks to tender in evidence a computer generated document needs to do more than just tendering same from the bar. Evidence in relation to the use of the computer must be called to establish the conditions set out under section 84(2) of the Evidence Act.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 15

16. KUBOR & ANOR v. DICKSON & ORS (2012) LPELR-15364(CA)

_ – Conditions for admissibility of computer generated documents_

“… Similarly Exhibit L is a computer generated
document allegedly printed out from the website of the 3rd respondent, showing the list of qualified candidates published by the 3rd respondent for the Bayelsa state Governorship election of 11th February, 2012. Being a computer generated document, a party seeking to tender same in evidence must comply strictly with Section 84(2)
and (3) of the Evidence Act, which I have alluded to earlier. Evidence must be given about the frequency of the use of the computer to store or process information and the condition of the computer as well as ascertainment of the authenticity of the information contained in the document. A party who seeks to tender computer generated evidence needs to do more than mere
tendering the document from the bar without more. Exhibit L is a document forming the official record of an official body. By section 102 (a)(ii) of the Evidence Act it is a public document that requires certification on payment of prescribed fees as provided for under section 104(1) of the Evidence Act. It is therefore not a licence to go to the website of official bodies to print out information in the custody of such official bodies for purposes of litigation without requesting for such documents in the first place from the officials of those official bodies. Where a request is made and such officials refuse to produce such documents, then a party who desires to use such document in litigation can resort to the use of computer print out being secondary evidence under section 91 of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides as follows:-
“secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in paragraph (a) of section 89 shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is or to a legal practitioner employed by such party, such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law and if no notice to produce is prescribed by law then such notice as the court considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case.”Section 89(a) of the same Act provides as follows:-
“Secondary evidence may be given of
the existence condition or contents of a document in the following cases.
(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power.
(i) of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or
(ii) of any person legally bound to produce it, and when after the notice mentioned in Section 91 such person does not produce it.”

To Read Full Judgment :

Send Read 16

*17. AROCOM GLOBAL INVESTMENT LTD v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE LTD *

_ – Requirements of the Evidence Act with respect to the admissibility of computer generated evidence; instance where documents will be held not to qualify as computer generated documents_

“The bone of contention under this issue is whether or not Exhibits UPS 1-14, UPS A1-11, UPS B1-4, UPS C1- 8, UPS D1-D119, UPS E1-2, UPS F1-2, UPS G1, UPS H1, UPS 11, and UPS K1 are computer generated documents which require compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 to be admissible. Section 84(1) of the Evidence Act provides thus: “In any proceeding, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.” Subsection 4 of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides as follows: “In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this Section, a certificate: (a) Identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced. (b) Giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer; (c) Dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) above related, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or t

Advertise with us
Oludare
Oludare
Lawyer, Bibliophile, Polyglot, Traveller
Advertise with us
Must Read
Advertise with us
Related News
Advertise with us

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.