HON. MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY vs. VIVIANNE LTD.(2022)LCN/16804(CA)
โThe Appellant whilst denying all the averments of the Respondent in their pleadings stated categorically that the documents Exhibit PP1 โ PP8 tendered by the Respondent were forgeries and as such the Respondent had no right to the reliefs sort by it in its claim.
By this, the Appellant is alleging that the Respondent forged Exhibit PP1 โ Exhibit PP8 and therefore, not entitled to the reliefs sought. What does the law envisage where there is an allegation of forgery?
I will first of all define what forgery means in this context.
โForgery is the noun of the verb โforgeโ and to forge means inter allia, to make a copy or an imitation of something in order to deceive people. See OLUFEMI BABALOLA VS. THE STATE (1989) LPELR-695 PER NGWUTA. And by the Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, pg. 677 โforgeryโ is defined to include:
(1) The Act of fraudulent making false documents or altering a real one to be used as if genuine.
(2) A false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with intent to deceive. Per Mbaba, Justice Court of Appeal in EGEJURU VS. MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS INVESTIGATION PANAL (2017) LPELR-42616; APC VS. PDP (2015) LPELR-24587; ADINNU VS. ADINNU (2013) LPELR-21251; AGI VS. PDP (2016) LPELR-42578.
In an allegation of forgery, an essential ingredient to be proved is that the accused person forged the documents in question. See KAYODE IDOWU VS. THE STATE (1998) LPELR-1427; ALAKE VS. THE STATE (1992) 9 NWLR PT. 265 PG. 260.
In the instant appeal, the Appellant alleged that the Respondent forged Exhibit PP1 โ PP8 but did not proffer any proof of that. Forgery can be alleged in a Civil Suit such as this. However, the ingredients of forgery both in criminal and civil matters are the same. They are as follows:
a) Existence of an original/genuine documents.
b) That the documents is forged.
c) That forgery was done by the accused.
d)That the accused knows that it was forged.
e) That the accused intended the forged documents to be acted upon as an original/genuine to the detriment of the victim. See ALAKE VS. THE STATE (1991) 7 NWLR PT. 205 PG. 567; APC VS. PDP (Supra); OBIOMA VS. THE STATE (2020) 3 NWLR PT. 1710 PG. 45; MODIBO VS. USMAN (2020) 3 NWLR PT. 1712 PG 470; ABEBE VS FRN (2020) LPELR 50806.
The burden and standard of proof in cases of forgery is like in criminal matter even where it is alleged in a civil matter. The onus is on the Appellant in this appeal to prove this allegation of forgery. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
To prove forgery, both the original and the fake (forged one) must be produced in Court for examination. See OKPALANGWU VS. FRN (2021) LPELR-52710; EGEJURU VS. MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS INVESTIGATION PANEL (Supra); BABALOLA VS. THE STATE (Supra). In APC VS. PDP (Supra) the Court held inter allia: That before an allegation of forgery can be said to be established, the original documents and the forged ones must be tendered in evidence. It said: โIn my view, based on the definition above, to prove forgery or that a documents is forged, two documents must be produced: (1) The document from which the forgery was made, and (2) The forgery or the forged document. Only one document โ the allegedly forged HND Certificate was produced. If it is forged, then the genuine document from which the forgery was made must exist. No such document is in evidence; it follows the allegation of forgery of the HND Certificate was not proved and consequently, the appellant failed to prove the allegation that the 2nd respondent presented a forged HND Certificate to INEC.โ See again Alake Vs. State (supra) where my Lord, Kutigi, JSC, (as he then was, later CJN) said: โIt is implicit from the forgoing that there was no direct evidence that the appellant forged any of the cheques. It is an essential ingredient to be proved in charge of forgery that โthe accused forged the document in questionโ
An allegation of forgery in a civil suit must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved EZE VS. ENE (2017) LPELR-41916. It is not proper as in this case for the DW1 to allege forgery without really pleading it.
Counsel to the Appellant argued that the Respondent did not challenge paragraph 4 โ 14 of the Appellantโs statement of defence. The law required the Appellant to plead specifically forgery and prove it. It cannot be proved by evidence of DW1 which go to no issue in this appeal if not specifically pleaded.
In EYA VS. OLAPADE (2011) LPELR-1184. Rhodes- Vivour held as follows: โThe law is very well crystallized that where a plaintiff (appellant) avers in his pleadings that a document (Exhibit F) is a forgery, to succeed he must plead and provide particulars of forgery in his pleadings. Then proceed at trial to establish that Exhibit F is a forgery and the standard required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The appellantsโ did not provide particulars of forgery and did not lead evidence in proof of forgery. The pleading that Exhibit F is a forgery must be discountenanced as there was/is nothing before the Court to show that Exhibit F is a forgery.โ Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC.
It is also important that to prove forgery or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced.
(1) The document from which the forgery was made, and
(2) The forgery or the forged document. See APC VS. PDP (2015) LPELR-24587.
In this appeal the Appellants alleged that all the documents tendered by the Respondent Exhibit PP1 โ PP8 were all forged. The Appellant did not produce the genuine documents from which the Exhibits were forged to the Court. The Appellant alleged forgery but could not prove it.
The standard of proof in a case of forgery must be beyond reasonable doubt. APC VS. PDP (Supra); MOHAMMED VS. WAMMAKO (2017) LPELR-42667.
It is worthy of note that the documents alleged forged Exhibit PP1 โ PP8 were all documents pertaining to this allocation of Plot 480 in the Central District. The Exhibits PP1 โ PP8 are sequential in the process of Land acquisition.
The Appellantโs stamps were on all the documents having been received by the Appellant. There was the Appellantโs stamp receiving the documents for recertification. Also worrisome is the Appellantโs officials certifying all the documents as a true copy of the original. If the Respondents actually certified the photocopies as public documents, where does it lie in its mouth to turn round and allege that they were forgeries.
The Appellant had certified all the documents Exhibit PP1 โ PP8 as copies of the original, the Court shall presume them regular. See S. 146 and 168 of the Evidence Act.
- The Court shall presume every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer in Nigeria who is duly authorised in that behalf to be genuine, provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
- The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such document.
Section 168 of Evidence Act (2011) - When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.
- When it is shown that a person acted in a public capacity, it is presumed that he had been duly appointed and was entitled so to act.
- When a person in possession of any property is shown to be entitled to the beneficial ownership of it, there is a presumption that every instrument has been executed which it was the legal duty of his trustees to execute in other to perfect his title.
- When a minute is produced purporting to be signed by the Chairman of a company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matter Act and purporting to be a record of proceeding at a meeting of the company or of its director it is presumed, until the contrary is shown, that such meeting was duly held and convened and that all proceeding at the meeting have been duly had, and that all appointments of directors, managers and liquidators are valid.
See A.G.F. VS. ANUEBUNWA (2022) LPELR-57750; OGBUANYINYA VS. OKUDO (1990) LPELR-2294; UZOMA VS. ASODIKE (2009) LPELR-8421;
ANUEBUNWA VS. A.G.F. (2020) LCN/14805(CA) CA/A/CV/387/2020; OBIANWUNA OGBUANYINYA & ORS. VS. OBI OKUDO & ORS. (1990) LPELR-42978 (SC); OKECHUKWU UZOMA VS. DR. VICTOR ASODIKE (2009) LCN/3134 (CA) CA/PH/188/2007).
โIt is trite, that literally speaking, the word โcopyโ, 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 โCertificateโ is a derivative of the latin word โ โCertificandoโ. 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 โCertified True Copyโ or โcertified copyโ, 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 โattested copyโ; exemplified copy; โverified copyโ etc. See Blackโs Law Dictionary 8th Edition 2004 at 239. Per SAULAWA, JCA (as he then was).
The Appellant having certified Exhibit PP1 โ PP8 as true copies of the original, it would be unconscionable to deny the documents in another breath. As it is, the documents Exhibits PP1 โ PP8 have been certified as copies of the original. The learned trial Judge was therefore, right to have accepted them as genuine documents in which the Respondent had utilised in proving his case against the Appellant. I believe that the trial Court properly evaluated the material evidence placed before it by both parties. It is common ground that the primary duty of a trial Court is to adequately evaluate the evidence adduced in the case and make appropriate findings of facts in respect of all issues arising in the case and material in the determination of the case Per Karibi Whyte in WILSON VS. OSHIN (2000) LPELR-3497. Mukhtar Justice Supreme Court also has this to say: โProper evaluation of evidence is absolutely important for in order to determine a case and come to a just conclusion, it is trite that the learned trial Judge must assess and appraise all evidence before him.โ See ADELEKE VS. IYANDA (2001) 13 NWLR PT. 729 PG 1; ADENIJI VS. ADENIJI (1972) 4 SC PG. 10.
Having held that the learned trial Judge assessed the material evidence placed before him correctly, I would consequently agree with his findings. The documents tendered by the Respondent towards the certification of Plot 480 allocated to him were genuinely allocated by the Appellant.
I therefore, find this Appeal without merit. It is dismissed. I affirm the judgment of the lower Court and all the reliefs granted to the Respondent. Cost to the Respondent is assessed at (N200,000.00) Two Hundred Thousand Naira only.โ Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA.