Elf Petroleum (Nig.) Limited V. Augustine Mathew Amadike & Anor (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

T. O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is the judgment in respect of appeal against the Ruling of High Court of Rivers State Coram Jumbo J. delivered on 28/02/2006 admitting in evidence a THIS DAY NEWSPAPER of 3/9/97 as Exhibit B in the proceeding.

In the course of the proceedings at the court below, PW1 in his evidence in chief tendered a THIS DAY NEWSPAPERS OF 3/9/97 as exhibit. The defence counsel objected to its admissibility. In his Ruling, the learned trial judge held as follows inter alia:

“The essence of tendering the document sought to be admitted in evidence is to show that there was an increase in rent payable. In paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs pleaded that there was a recent Government approved rate. I am of the view that the document sought to be admitted is intercede to prove the fact of increase. I have also thoroughly perused the document in question. It is a copy of This Day Newspaper. It is certified by an officer in the Rivers State Library Board and stamped with the seal and official stamp of the Board.

From the state pleadings, it is also obvious that this document is relevant to this proceeding. The objections raised by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant border more on technicalities. The Supreme Court has in a plethora of juristic authorities reiterated the fact that it is more concerned with doing substantial justice between the parties and will not be deterred by objections based on technicalities. See ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE V. ATTORNEY – GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (1982) 1 NCR. 1.

In view of the foregoing, I have come to the conclusion that the document sought to be admitted in evidence is admissible in evidence. The objection is therefore dismissed, and the document is admitted in evidence and marked EXHIBIT “B”.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial court the appellant filed two grounds of appeal to this court.

After the transmission of records both parties to the appeal exchanged briefs of argument.

In his brief counsel for the appellant formulated on issue for determination to wit.

“Whether on the state of the pleadings in suit No. OHC/129/98 and in the circumstances of the case the THIS DAY NEWSPAPER admitted by the learned trial judge is pleaded, relevant and therefore admissible in evidence?”

DENNIS I OKWAKPAM, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the THIS DAY PUBLICATION or facts not having been pleaded precisely distinctly and unequivocally to were clearly inadmissible and irrelevant. He further submitted that the publication was not an agreement between the parties in suit No. OHC/129/98 neither a statute nor publication showing government increase in rent or tariffs payable to the Respondents by the appellants the Cited ATANDA V. AJANI (1989) 6 SCNJ 193 At 205; IPINLAYE V. OLUKOTUN (1996) 6 SNJ 74, 84 and other cases.

He finally urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the court below admitting the Respondents THIS DAY PUBLICATION delivered on the 28/2/2006 and expunge same from the evidence.

Learned counsel for the Respondents formulated three issues out of the two grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. This is proliferation of issues which courts frown at. It is trite law that whilst an issue may embrace one or more grounds of appeal, the issues formulated must not be more than the grounds of appeal. See LAWAL V. SALAMI (2002) 2 NWLR (PT. 752) 658; OYEKAN v. AKINRINWA (1996) 7 NWLR (PT. 459) 128; DUWIN P&C CO. LTD. V. BENEKS P&C LTD (2008) 31 WRN 1 at 17. I shall therefore discountenance the issues moreso when the sole issue formulated by the appellant covers the issues formulated by the Respondents.

In his brief learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the material facts leading to the admissibility of Exhibits B were pleaded. He stated that Exhibit B was documentary evidence which did not need to be pleaded. He referred to section 111 and 116 of the Evidence Act. He submitted further that: