n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Onwuzuruike V. Edoziem (2016) CLR 1(ZE) (SC)

Judgement delivered on January 22nd 2016

Brief

  • Secondary Evidence - where it may be given as to contents of a document
  • Public document – Meaning of and what constitutes
  • Public document - Whether Police documents to be used in Court are public documents
  • Section 102 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011
  • Section 109 of the Evidence Act, 2011
  • Section 94(1) of the Evidence Act 2004
  • Section 97(2) (c) of the Evidence Act 2004
  • Section 97 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 98 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 109(b) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 318(b) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 18(1) of the interpretation Act

Facts

This appeal is against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division which was delivered on the 15th day of November, 2004. The said appeal was from the interlocutory ruling of the High Court of Imo State Coram: P. C. Onumajulu J. (as he then was) sitting at Owerri.

The appellant herein was the respondent at the Court of Appeal and the plaintiff at the trial Court while the respondents were the appellants at the Lower Court and defendants at the trial Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and it is against that decision that the appellant has filed this Appeal being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Lower Court

The appellant as the plaintiff instituted an action against the respondents as defendants at the Imo State High Court sitting in Owerri claiming thus:

  • a
    An unqualified apology
  • b
    A retraction of the said publication
  • c
    Two million naira (N2m) general damages for the libelous publication, unlawful arrest and detention of the plaintiff for seven hours at the "Area Commander's Office."

    • In the course of evidence of the prosecution witnesses the appellant himself testified as the PW1 while the police non who investigated the alleged petition of the respondents which gave rise to the suit in the High Court testified as the PW2. The genesis of the suit was that the appellant and the respondents are from the same community of Mbieri in Mbaitoli Local Government Area of Imo State. Indeed, they are from the same kindred. The appellant alleged that the respondents wrote a libelous petition against him to the Area Commander of Police Owerri. The petition was investigated by the police.

    At the trial Court the PW2 as the police officer who investigated the said petition sought to tender the alleged petition to the police in the course of his evidence. Objection was raised by counsel to the defendants/respondents on the ground that what was sought to be tendered was a photocopy and not either the original copy or a certified true copy of the said petition. At this stage the counsel to the plaintiff conceded to the fact that the document sought to be tendered was a photocopy and withdrew it saying that he had the original copy of the petition. Surprisingly, the counsel to the plaintiff re-tendered the same photocopy of the alleged petition. Despite objections against it by the counsel to the defendants that the document was a public document and ought to be certified as a secondary evidence the trial Court admitted the alleged petition as exhibit "C" together with other documents which were neither mentioned in the exhibit as forming part of it nor were they even mentioned by the witness.

    The trial Court admitted the said photocopy of the petition as exhibit "C" holding that it was a private document. The defendants now respondents appealed against the said ruling to the Court of Appeal essentially on the ground that a document coming from police record was a public document and that its secondary evidence can only be a certified true copy of same.

    The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and agreed with the respondents that exhibit "C" being a petition to the police formed part of the record of the police upon its receipt by the police. And that when the investigating police officer, was testifying as the PW2 and sought to tender the said petition to the police he could only tender a certified true copy of it as a secondary evidence. The Lower Court held that the trial Court erred in holding that the said petition coming from the police was a private document. The respondents in their pleading did not admit writing any libelous petition against the appellant.

    It is against that decision that the appellant has filed this Appeal being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when...

Read More