NA’ADADE PETROLEUM LTD. vs. FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY MINISTER & ORS.(2022)LCN/17168
(CA)
ISSUE: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
Whether the worthlessness and inadmissibility of an unsigned public document can be cured by certification of same by the issuing authority
PRINCIPLE:
“It is the contention of the Appellant that Exhibit D7 was not signed; in other words the same was not made by any known person and therefore inadmissible in evidence. On the legal effect of unsigned document, the general rule is that unsigned document is worthless and does not have a legal status. It does not matter whether the document in question was tendered by an alleged maker. The maker who allegedly made a document must sign it for it to be examined by a Court of law. Where a document tendered in evidence as primary evidence is not signed, it cannot be relied upon. See: MR. LABARAN MAKU V. ALHAJI UMARU TANKO AL-MAKURA & ORS. (2016) LPELR-48123 (SC); OMEGA BANK (NIG.) PLC V. O.B.C. LTD. (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 249) 1964 AT 1993-1994, (2005) 8 NWLR (PT. 928) 547; GLOBAL SOAP & DETERGENT IND. LTD. V. NAFDAC (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 599) 1025 AT 1047 where the Supreme Court held thus: “It is my considered view that Exhibit P20 not being a signed document by the maker thereof, has no weight whatsoever.”
Exhibit D7 as seen at page 38 of the records of appeal is an unsigned survey map certified at Abuja Geographic Information Systems. On the effect of such unsigned survey plan, the Supreme Court in ALHAJI A. ALIYU V. DR. JOHN ADEWUNMI SODIPO (1994) LPELR-423 (SC) held as follows: “The requirements for countersignature relate to matters of evidence and the production of the document in evidence and a non-compliance, at any rate at that stage, with the Survey Act does not render the plan void or useless. I need add that where a plan is tendered per se but does not conform with the requirements of Section 3 (b) of the Survey Law (or Act), it may nevertheless be admitted in evidence “if good cause (is) shown to the Court” for non-compliance.”
The Supreme Court also in ASHAKACEM PLC V. ASHARATUL MUBASHSHURUN INVESTMENT LIMITED (2019) LPELR-46541 (SC) held thus: “The point has to be made that the requirement of signature is made by the law to determine its origin and authenticity with regard to its maker and so where certain situations exist an unsigned document could be admissible as in this instance where oral evidence clarifying the document and its authorship as in the case at hand thereby rendering such an unsigned document admissible.”
The Survey Act of the FCT in Section 3 (1) (b) provides as follows:
- No map, plan or diagram of land.
a) …
b) If prepared after 16th May 1918, shall except for good course shown to the Court, be admitted in evidence in any Court unless the map, plan or diagram
i. Has been prepared and signed by a Surveyor or is a copy of a map, plan or diagram so prepared and signed is certified by a surveyor as being a true copy;
And:
ii. Has been examined by the surveyor Department and bears the counter-signature of the Director.
From the authorities referred to above and the Survey Act of the FCT in Section 3 (1) (b); it is the position of the law that the mere fact that a document and a plan as in this case was not signed does not automatically make it inadmissible in law; it is only where there is no shown good course or oral evidence clarifying the document and its authorship that the plan and/or document will be inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, the mere fact that Exhibit D7 was not signed will not outrightly make it inadmissible unless there was no oral evidence clarifying the authorship of Exhibit D7. Exhibit D7, though an unsigned survey map, was certified at Abuja Geographic information systems. This means the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the certification clarified that the referred exhibit emanates from them and is authentic. In the circumstances of the case therefore; the trial Court was right in admitting Exhibit D7 in evidence.” Per ONYEMENAM, JCA.