Documentary Evidence

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 &

In political cases, the only proof of winning of an election is the election result duly issued; mere averments cannot stand up to that. The Court below was right to place a greater value on documentary evidence, which bears eloquent testimony to what happened – See Aiki V. ldowu (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt 984) 47, wherein it was observed-
Documents when tendered and admitted in Court are like words uttered and do speak for themselves. They are even more reliable and authentic than words from the vocal cord of man because they are neither transient nor subject to distortion and misinterpretation but remain permanent and indelible through the ages. The documents bear eloquent testimony to what happened.

It is an elementary principle that documentary evidence is used as a hanger to test veracity of evidence, whether oral or by affidavit – see Gbileve V. Addingi (supra), Kimdey V. Mil. Gov. Gongola (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.77) 445 and Fashanu V. Adekoya (1974) 4 SC 83. Thus, documentary evidence is a hanger to base other pieces of evidence.