Skip to main content

How Evidence of Correspondence is Proved

Practice Note:

 

How Evidence of Correspondence is proved:

 

 SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/144/2017 AYO OYARERO VS THE BRITISH HIGH COMMISSION

 

"However this email only shows what the 1st defendants officer Edward Nyong prepared for dissemination to the GPC holder and Approvers in Lagos and Abuja. There is no evidence that this email was ever sent out or received by any one, the law is clear on how the actual delivery of correspondence can be proved. See The law has been well established that in order to prove that a letter was actually delivered to the addressee there must be  proof of receipt and this can be established by (a) dispatch book indicating the receipt, or (b) evidence of dispatch by registered post or evidence of witnesses, credible enough that the person was served with the document. NLEWEDIM Vs. UDUMA [1995] 6 NWLR 309 at p394 para B. followed in AGBAJE Vs. FASHOLA [2008] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1082)1. With regards to email correspondence I find and hold that an acknowledgement email from any of the recipients or a reply from any of the addressees forwarding their team’s proposed and adopted strategies for internal control. Any such return email would suffice and satisfy this requirement. Especially as Exhibit D8 is bereft of any signature block which would display incode of the domain name, sever, subject contents and other characteristics of the mail and its being sent.

 
In the unreported case of SUIT NO: NICN/CA/17/2014MR. OBONA AKPAN OFEM Vs. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION & 3ORS delivered on the 31st May 2017, this court held in respect of documents lacking evidence of delivery or dispatch that “the said exhibit..... I find were not served on the claimant and as such are only evidence of documents prepared by the defendant  and have no nexus with the claimant despite they bear the claimant’s name. In the instant case I find that there is nothing on Exhibit D8 to indicate that this email was ever sent to the within named addressees or anyone afortori received by any one"

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

THE UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE: AN UNENDING DEBATE ON AN EXPARTE APPLICATION TO PLACE A SUIT THEREUNDER OR OTHERWISE

The Undefended list procedure recently caught my attention while reading through the pages of some new decisions of the apex court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Just like other well known procedural aspects of law that refuse to get buried in old reports, the mode of application for an Undefended list is still very much a contention, as it continues to appear over the years. Now in order not to mistaken

LAWAL OSULA V. LAWAL OSULA (1995) 10 SCNJ 84; AN OVERVIEW

By Janet Babajide (Miss) LLB  B.l. INTRODUCTION It is generally believed that a person possess the right to make a Will according to his wishes or desire. While this is true, can this right be said to be absolute? What is the position of the Customary Law and Islamic Law in respect of Wills making? To what extent is the Limitation Law applicable to issues of succession under the Customary Law? This case is a decisionof the Supreme Court and borders on succession/inheritance under the Bini Native Law and Custom viz a viz an action therefrom being caught under the tentacles of the Limitation Law of the old Bendel State. An overview of this case seeks to answer all the aforestated questions.

Documents Listed but not Front-loaded with Pleadings (Update)

My attention was called to an authority a few days ago about the topic. I instantly recalled making an argument for the position taken by the Court in an earlier post which can be found  here . The position of the law regarding front-loading documents alongside pleadings has taken a twist in favour of doing substantial justice.