The purpose of the requirement of the Rules of Court for the frontloading of documents is in order to expedite the trial by giving the parties an overview of the case and the documents to be relied upon, with a view to the necessary concessions and understandings being reached on the admissibility of the documents by consent and eschewing unnecessary objections to the admissibility of the documents.[1]
Although the Rules of this court provides for frontloading, frontloading is not a requirement for the admissibility of a document. [2] The Evidence Act did not make any provision to the effect that if a document is not frontloaded same will not be admitted in evidence. In order words, frontloading is not a criterion for admissibility. Therefore, rejecting a document in evidence solely on the ground that same was not frontloaded will occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice.[3]Once the evidence meets the three main criteria for admissibility of evidence, notwithstanding that there had been non-compliance with the Rules of Court in respect of frontloading documents the court can order the party to frontload the documents at a later time.[4]
[1]Buhari v Haddy Smart (Nig) Ltd(2009) LPELR (8362) 1 at 22; Okali v Okali (2017) LPELR (42838) 1 at 41.
[2]Chime v Egwuonwu (2008) 2 LRECN 575, 616.
[3]Chime v Ezea (2008) 2 LRECN 673, 744, 745 ;Ogboru v Uduaghan (2011) 2 NWLR 538.
[4] Minister for Works, Housing and Urban Development and others v Ogungbe (2018) LPELR-45977(CA) 35-40 paras D-A.