- Meaning of certified true copy
It is trite, that literally speaking, the word ‘copy’, as a noun, means an imitation or reproduction of an original. Within the purview of the law of evidence, a copy is invariably and generally admissible to prove the contents of a writing. On the other hand, the word ‘Certificate’ is a derivative of the latin word – ‘Certificando’. It denotes a document in which a fact is formally attested e.g. Death certificate, school certificate, share certificate, certificate of marriage, certificate of occupancy, etc. Thus, the term ‘Certified True Copy’ or ‘certified copy’, for short, means a duplicate of an original (usually) official document certified as an exact reproduction by the officer responsible for issuing or keeping the original. It is termed or called ‘attested copy’; exemplified copy; ‘verified copy’ etc. See Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition 2004 at 239.[1]
Section 111 of the Evidence Act provides that every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title and shall be sealed whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
It is now settled that a wrongly certified or even an uncertified public document can be re-certified and re-tendered in evidence.[2] Poor certification is generally treated as mere irregularity, and the Court can order the document to be properly certified by curing the defect complained of. In this regard the mistake of the certifying officer ought not to have been and will not be visited on the litigant. Judicial stance is shifting towards substantial justice as opposed to arcane or crass technicality.[3]
Certification will be deemed sufficient:
- Where the document is duly dated and signed by the said officer with his name, and official title. The only complaint being that the certification was done at the back of the document.[4]
- Where the document is duly dated, signed and stamped by the said officer with his official title. The only complaint being that the name of the said officer was not indicated. [5]
- Where a document is duly dated, signed and stamped by the said officer with his name and official title. The only complaint being that the certification was only done on the first page. The integral part of the document will be deemed certified. For instance certifying the certificate of occupancy without certifying the annexed site plan.[6]
- Where the document is duly dated, signed and stamped by the said officer with his name and official title. The only complaint being that the fees was not paid or indicated because the document emanated from the custody of the party seeking to tender same. For instance, the EFCC could not be expected to pay fees for the certification of documents which were at all times in their custody and which were produced from their custody, in proof of a case which they investigated. In other words, EFCC cannot be expected to pay for certified true copy fees to themselves on a document issued and intended to be used by them.[7]
[1] Uzoma v Asodike (2009) LPELR-8421(CA) Per SAULAWA ,J.C.A 24 paras A-D.
[2]Umogbai v Aiyemhoba [2002] FWLR [Pt.132] 192 CA, [2002] 8 NWLR [Pt.770] 687.
[3]Aribisala v Ogunyemi [2001] FWLR [pt.31] 2807; Omabuwa v Owhofatso [2006] ALL FWLR [PT.323] 1655 at 1674.
[4]ANPP and another v PDP and others [2006] 17 NWLR [pt.1009] 467 at 494 B – C; Uzoma v Asodike (2009) LPELR-8421(CA) 17-20, paras.E-F.
[5]Chairman, Oyo State Local Government Traditional Council and others v Adegboye III and others (2010) LPELR-3903(CA)13, paras. A-C.
[6] All Nigeria Peoples Party v Peoples Democratic Party (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt 1009) 467, Uzoma v Asodike (2009) LPELR-8421(CA); Juidi v Bako and others (2017) LPELR-43362(CA) 20 paras A-D.
[7]Brila Energy Ltd v FRN (2018) LPELR-43926(CA) 38-44 paras D-B.