The computer or gadget to be used in playing or demonstrating electronic evidence does not need certification.

 

Dickson v. Sylva [2017] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167 at 222, paras. B-C, per Ngwuta, JSC:

“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 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.”

per Kekere-Ekun, JSC, at 234, paras. D-E:

“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.”

Electronic evidence

Blogger’s Note:

The case involves an interlocutory appeal filed by the Appellant contesting the decision of the Court of Appeal which held, while overruling the trial Tribunal, that the computer device to be used in demonstrating an electronically-generated evidence does not require certification. Continue reading The computer or gadget to be used in playing or demonstrating electronic evidence does not need certification.

The blood relation of a victim of crime is not necessarily a tainted witness.

Adekoya v. State [2017] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1565) 343 at 359, paras. A-B, per Peter-Odili, JSC:

“The evidence of PW4 was not contradicted during cross-examination. Learned counsel for the appellant had sought to discredit the testimony on the ground that PW4 was a tainted witness. In that regard, I would have to say that the mere fact that a witness is a blood relation of the victim does not translate without more to being a tainted witness. See Musa v. State (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1286) 59; Ben v. State (2006) 12 SCM (Pt. 2) 71 at 88, (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1006) 582.”

Blogger’s Note:

There is no statutory definition for “tainted witness” and none is contained in the Evidence Act 2011. In Ojo v. Gharoro (2006) 2 – 3 SC 105 at 124, Tobi, JSC (of blessed memory) described a “tainted witness” as “…a biased witness, that is to say a witness who, because of his prejudices and sentiments will invariably give evidence in favour of the party calling him, with little or no regard for the truth. A tainted witness could be an interested witness. And because of his interest, the witness develops a one sided inclination and it is the inclination towards the party who calls him to give evidence; no matter the obvious lies he tells in court. In determining whether a witness is an interested witness or a tainted witness, the court must examine the relationship of the witness to the party calling him.” Continue reading The blood relation of a victim of crime is not necessarily a tainted witness.