Akazor Gladys & Ors. v Council Of Legal Education

• Judge: Honourable Justice Sanusi Kado
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2020
• Respondent: Council Of Legal Education
• Appellant: Akazor Gladys & Ors.
• Docket Number: NICN/ABJ/346/2017
• Counsel: Joseph O. Ilorah, Esq; for the Claimants appearing with Vivian Akowe, Esq; and Joy Asije, Esq; A. A. Abogede, Esq; for the Defendants appearing with Sanusi Sanusi Dakat,
• Court: National Industrial Court (Nigeria)

1. In the course of giving evidence in chief certain documents were sought to be tendered in evidence through DW1. The documents include those that are in form of table with rows and column and names of people, termed as attendance register. The other documents include clearance forms, letter to Permanent Secretary Bureau of Public Service Reforms, certificates of participation at Seminar for Assistance for pre-retirement, and Retirees pay Slips from the office of Accountant General of the Federation.
2. Joseph Ilorah, Esq; counsel for the claimants vehemently objected to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered in evidence through DW1. On the attendance register counsel contended there is nothing like attendance register pleaded or frontloaded and nothing shows that the document emanated from the defendant. Counsel argued on its face is a concoction.
3. On the letter dated 12/9/2011, counsel contended that the document has nothing like letter head or address of the maker to qualify as a letter. It cannot be said from where it is coming from. Furthermore, the letter is a forwarding letter but what it purport to forward was not attached also being public document it was not properly certified. There was also nothing to show it was written by the defendant. Counsel urged the court to reject it.
4. On certificates of participation at pre-retirement seminar. Counsel for the claimants contended that the issue is not whether they were retired. Also the so called certificate of Hambali Jimoh is unknown to the claimants. It was also argued that no foundation has been laid as to where the originals are.
5. On retirement severance pay slips, which were said to have come from the Accountant General Office. As photocopies, they were not certified by any one. They are unknown to the claimants. No proper certification and there are many unknown names and there are mutilations. It was also argued that the documents were computer generated have not satisfied conditions for admissibility of computer generated document.
6. On clearance forms, counsel posited that the witness said there is signature on the forms but we cannot see signature. Being public document they were not properly certified. There is no evidence of payment no endorsement from the pleading. It was after disengagement that they were issued from 3/2/2006 to 31/12/2006. They are not originals, no proper foundation laid for admissibility. Counsel urged the court to reject the documents.
7. In response to the objection to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered in evidence, counsel for the...