Document

I am only to add that even in the domain of civil litigation where the plea of non est factum appears to hold more sway, the law remains sacrosanct that in the absence of fraud or duress the signature of a person on a document is evidence of the fact that he is either the author of the content of the document above his signature or that the contents were brought to his attention before appending his signature. The application of these principles would have left the appellant in the quandary anyway. See Yadia Nigeria Ltd v. Great Nigeria Insurance Company Ltd (2001) 11 NWLR (pt 725) 529.

Thirdly, it is the law that where a judgment, or any other judicial or official proceeding, contract or any grant or disposition of property has been reduced to the form of a document or series of documents, oral evidence will not be allowed to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract therefrom. See Section 128 of the Evidence Act, 2011, except where fraud, illegality or other exceptions set out in sub-paragraph 1 (a) to (e) are established. See: Anyanwu v. Uzowuaka & Ors (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt.1159) 445; Fortune International Bank Plc V. Pegasus Trading Office (GMBH) & Ors. (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 863) 369, where it was held that the exceptions only permit evidence which will not be inconsistent with the terms of the relevant contract or document; Ezemba V. Ibenema (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 617; Macaulay V. NAL Merchant Bank (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.144) 283.

BULET INTERNATIONAL NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR v. OLANIYI &

As to his argument that the trial Court should have looked or referred to the Statement that was not tendered in evidence, my simple response is that a Court is not allowed to act on any document not tendered or admitted in evidence before it.
As Okoro, JSC, observed in Wassah & Ors V. Kara & Ors (2014) LPELR-24212(SC) – "In fact, no Court is allowed to go outside the gamut of evidence before it to shop for materials upon which to decide a case before it". In other words, a Court cannot go rummaging through a case file to fish or scout for any evidence that may either fill the gap in the Prosecution's case or blow the Prosecution's case to smithereens so that no piece of evidence can be found to ground the conviction of an Accused.
The notion that the Court has power to do any such thing is anathema to what justice stands for – justice for the Accused and justice also for the State that has reason to prosecute him for any offence that he may have committed against the State. This will not be justice as we know it or justice we want it to be.