Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:52:11.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Admissibility of Computer-Generated Evidence Under Nigeria's (New) Evidence Act, 2011

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Olayinka Silas Akinwumi  and
Kamoru Tiawo Lawal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Computers and other electronic information and communication devices represent a new millennium in the age of technology development. The advent of computers brought with it a new form of record keeping in software - microfilms, microchips, diskettes, flash drives - that are not by any means within the former understanding of the word ‘documents.' However, tendering computer-generated evidence is often as contentious and acrimonious as the underlying litigation itself, with the party opposing such evidence usually relying on the hearsay rule, among other forms of objections under the old Evidence Act, to prevent its admission.

This article examines the relevance and conceptual analysis of sections of the new Evidence Act, 2011 under which computer-generated evidence can be admissible in evidence as well as the conditions to be fulfilled under each section. The article concludes by suggesting further steps that can create room for other forms of electronic or computer-generated evidence in Nigerian courts.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , Winter 2012 , pp. 583 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by the International Association of Law Libraries. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Chukwuemerie, I.A, Affidavit Evidence and Electronically Generated Materials in Nigerian Courts. Retrieved on Wednesday June 20, 2012 from: http//www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol3-3/affidavit.Google Scholar

2 Op. cit.Google Scholar

3 Oserogho & Associate, Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Nigeria. Retrieved on Friday June 28, 2012 from www.hg.org/article.asp?id=26980.Google Scholar

4 Afe Babalola, OFR, SAN, LLD, Witnesses. In Afe Babalola (ed.) 2001, Law and Practice of Evidence in Nigeria, Sibon Books Ltd, Ibadan, p. 397.Google Scholar

5 Section 1 of the Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

6 The Supreme Court per Coker, JSC in Agunbiade v. Sasegbon (1968) N.M.L.R 223 held that admissible evidence under the Act is evidence which is relevant and it should be borne in mind that what is not relevant is not admissible.Google Scholar

7 Afe Babalola, OFR, SAN, LLD, Definition, Nature, Scope, Sources and Classification of Evidence. In Afe Babalola (ed.) 2001, Law and Practice of Evidence in Nigeria, Sibon Books Ltd, Ibadan, p. 1.Google Scholar

8 Phipson on Evidence, Sweet & Maxwell, Eleventh Edition, 1970, p. 1.Google Scholar

9 2011.

10 Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 17, paragraph 5.Google Scholar

11 [1991] 4 NWLR (Pt. 186) p. 450.Google Scholar

12 [1962] 1 ALL NLR 214.Google Scholar

13 Per Ndoma-Egba in Nigeri-Arab Bank Ltd v. Shuaibu (supra) at p. 465 paragraph D-E.Google Scholar

14 [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt 881) P.294.Google Scholar

15 [198]) 1 SCNLR 214.Google Scholar

16 Ukachukwu v. Uba (supra) at p. 313 para. G-H.Google Scholar

17 See the case of Utteh v. State [1990] 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) p. 301.Google Scholar

18 Workshop Papers on Reform of the Evidence Act, 1995 p. 16 cited in Prof. I.E Sagay, SAN, Relevancy andAdmissibility. In Afe Babalola (ed.) 2001, Law and Practice of Evidence in Nigeria, Sibon Books Ltd, Ibadan, p. 14 at 15.Google Scholar

19 Section 258 Evidence Act, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 [1962] N.N.L.R 70 at 73-74.Google Scholar

21 See section 9 of the Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

22 Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, P.636.Google Scholar

23 Aguda, Law and Practice Relating to Evidence in Nigeria, Sweet & Maxwell p. 13.Google Scholar

24 Section 258 (1) (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Section 258 (1) (d) Evidence Act, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Section 59 (a) Southern Australian Evidence Act.Google Scholar

27 Cited in Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, ibid. at p. 256.Google Scholar

28 Chukwuemerie, I.A, Affidavit Evidence and Electronically Generated Materials in Nigerian Courts. Retrieved on Wednesday June 20, 2012 from: http//www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol3-3/affidavit.Google Scholar

29 Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, ibid. at pp. 243–244.Google Scholar

30 Section 38 Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

31 Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, P.790.Google Scholar

32 [1990] 6 NWLR (Pt. 157) p. 407.Google Scholar

33 Per Salami, J.C.A (as he then was) in Judicial Service Committee v. Omo (supra) at p. 468 para. B-C.Google Scholar

34 [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1072) 552.Google Scholar

35 Per Fabiyi, J.C.A in JAMB v. Orji (supra) at p. 569 paragraph F - G.Google Scholar

36 [1984] 8 NWLR (Pt. 364) 593.Google Scholar

37 Ajiboye v. State (Supra) at p. 600. See also the Supreme Court decision in Kala v. Potiskum [1998} 3NWLR (Pt. 540) 1.Google Scholar

38 See Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, p. 635 on the meaning of Best Evidence.Google Scholar

39 See the case of Macdonnell v. Evans [1852] 11 CB 930 at 941.Google Scholar

40 [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378.Google Scholar

41 At page 411 paragraph B.Google Scholar

42 See the case of Ogolo v. I.M.B (Nig.) Ltd (1995) 9 N.W.L.R (Pt. 419) p. 314.Google Scholar

43 Oserogho & Associate, Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Nigeria. Retrieved on Friday June 28, 2012 from http://www.hg.org/article.asp.Google Scholar

44 Aguda, T.A, The Law of Evidence, Spectrum Books Limited, 2005, P.75.Google Scholar

45 Id.Google Scholar

46 51 Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

47 (1969) N.M.L.R 194 S.C.Google Scholar

48 Now section 51 Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

49 Esso West Africa Incorporated v. Oyegbola (supra) at p. 198.Google Scholar

50 (1968).1 ALL NLR 171. In that case the Supreme Court relying on the English case of Asylum for Idiots v. Handysides and Ors. (1906) 22T.L.R 277 held that the court did not give a limited meaning to the interpretation of “books” used in the ordinary course of business in the bank”.Google Scholar

51 Evidence Act, Supra.Google Scholar

52 Ogolo v. I.M.B (Nig.) Ltd (supra) at p. 324 Para. B - C.Google Scholar

53 [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 658.Google Scholar

54 Now section 51 of the Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

55 Oguma Associated Cos. (Nig) Ltd. v. IBWA Ltd (Supra) at p. 680 Para. G-H.Google Scholar

56 (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 59) 84.Google Scholar

57 See also the case of Akunne V. Ekwunno & Ors 14 WACA 59.Google Scholar

58 [2010] 14 NWLR (PT. 1214) p. 481.Google Scholar

59 This case was decided based on the Evidence Act, Cap E14 L.F.N. 2004.Google Scholar

60 F.RN v. Fani Kayode (Supra) at p. 506 Para. D-E.Google Scholar

61 [2005] 15 NWLR (Pt. 689) p. 200.Google Scholar

62 U.B.N Plc. v Sparklin Brew. Ltd (supra) at p. 218 paragraphs C-F.Google Scholar

63 Chukwuemerie, A.I, Affidavit Evidence and Electronically Generated Evidence Materials in Nigeria Courts. Retrieved on Wednesday June 20, 2012 from www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol3-3/affidavit. See also the case of Yesufu v. ACB Ltd (1976) 4 SC 1.Google Scholar

64 Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, ibid. at p. 253.Google Scholar

65 Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, ibid. op. cit.Google Scholar

66 Aguda, Law and Practice Relating to Evidence in Nigeria, Sweet & Maxwell p. 96.Google Scholar

67 Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, ibid. at p. 253. The learned author was commenting on section 37 of the Evidence Act 2004 which is now section 51 under the new Evidence Act.Google Scholar

68 Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

69 Id.Google Scholar

70 Section 84 (4) Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

71 Kayode, supra.Google Scholar

72 Now section 89 (1) (h) of the Evidence Act, 2011.Google Scholar

73 Kayode, supra.Google Scholar

74 Id.Google Scholar

75 F.R.N v. Fani Kayode (supra) at page 501 paragraph B-C.Google Scholar

76 Per Dongben-Mensem, J.C.A at page 501 paragraph E-F.Google Scholar

77 See the case of Ogolo v. I.M.B (Nig.) Ltd (supra).Google Scholar