How Nigerian Law Firms Can Use AI to Produce Better Newsletters, Articles and Social Media Content

For many Nigerian law firms, one of the hardest parts of content marketing is not a lack of ideas, it is the time required to consistently turn legal developments into clear, polished and publishable content. A new regulation is issued, a regulator releases a circular, a court delivers a significant decision, or an agency publishes a roadmap, and before the firm can react, the news cycle has already moved on.

This is where language models can become genuinely useful.

Today, law firms can build tailored assistants inside ChatGPT, through Custom GPTs, and inside Google Gemini, through Gems, to help monitor developments, gather materials from credible sources, summarise updates, suggest angles for commentary, and produce first drafts for newsletters, client alerts, thought leadership pieces, and social media posts.

The practical point is simple, a Nigerian law firm does not need to start from a blank page every time. It can create a repeatable content engine, one that is faster, more organised, and still subject to legal review before publication.

That said, no serious law firm should treat AI output as publish ready by default. AI should support legal publishing, not replace editorial judgment.

Why this matters for Nigerian law firms

A Nigerian law firm that publishes consistently usually needs content across several channels at once. It may need a short LinkedIn or Instagram post on a fresh regulatory development, a fuller website article explaining the business implications, and a newsletter item for clients who want only the key point and next steps. The real opportunity is that one good research workflow can now feed all three.

Used properly, a Custom GPT or Gem can help your firm:

1. Identify recent legal and regulatory developments worth commenting on.
2. Search official and credible sources first.
3. Turn long materials into clear summaries.
4. Draft law firm style commentary in a more consistent voice.
5. Convert one legal development into multiple content formats.
6. Create a repeatable internal process for junior lawyers, associates, business development teams, or knowledge management staff.

That is especially useful in a Nigerian context, where legal business development increasingly depends on timely public commentary in sectors such as finance, telecoms, energy, data protection, tax, competition, employment, infrastructure, and dispute resolution.

What ChatGPT Custom GPTs can do for this workflow

Custom GPTs can be configured to behave like a dedicated legal content editor for your firm. You can define the sectors it should monitor, set the source hierarchy it must follow, upload a writing guide or prior articles as knowledge, and enable web search so it can look up current information when preparing content.

For a law firm, this makes a Custom GPT useful as a dedicated content research and drafting assistant.

What Gemini Gems can do for this workflow

Google Gemini Gems serve a similar purpose. A firm can create a Gem that knows its preferred tone, practice areas, formatting style, and editorial rules, then use that Gem to generate article drafts, post captions, newsletter blurbs, and source notes.

This is particularly useful for firms that already organise their work through Google Docs, Gmail, Drive, and Workspace.

A practical step by step system for Nigerian law firms

Step 1, decide what the assistant is for

Do not create a generic AI assistant and expect good results. Create one assistant for one clear workflow.

For example:

• A regulatory watch assistant for telecoms, fintech, tax, oil and gas, competition, or data privacy.
• A newsletter assistant for monthly client updates.
• A social media assistant for short legal commentary.
• A thought leadership assistant for longer legal articles.

The more precise the role, the better the output.

Step 2, define the source hierarchy

Your firm should tell the assistant where it must look first.

A sound hierarchy for legal content would be:

1. Primary sources, such as statutes, bills, regulations, official circulars, court judgments, government notices, and regulator statements.
2. Official agency websites and official social media handles.
3. Credible professional or institutional sources.
4. Reputable news reports, but only as supporting context, not as the primary authority where an official source exists.

This is one of the most important instructions you will give the system.

Step 3, give it your firm’s editorial rules

The assistant should know:

• The jurisdictions you care about.
• The sectors you monitor.
• Your writing style.
• How formal or commercial the tone should be.
• How cautious it should be with legal conclusions.
• How to handle uncertainty.
• Whether it must cite sources.
• Whether it must produce one version for lawyers and another for non lawyers.

Without this, the output will sound generic.

Step 4, upload internal guidance where appropriate

You can upload or attach items such as your style guide, disclaimer language, prior thought leadership pieces, sector focus notes, content approval checklist, and branding guidance. This helps the assistant mirror your internal standards more closely.

Step 5, make it search for recent developments

Enable web search or instruct the assistant to prioritise current official materials and verify them before presenting a draft. This is critical where your team wants to comment on fresh legal developments.

Step 6, require a source note every time

Never ask only for a post or article. Ask for the source note as well.

The assistant should return:

• The topic.
• The date of the development.
• The primary sources used.
• The official links or references consulted.
• A short explanation of why the development matters.
• Any uncertainty or unresolved point.

That makes legal review faster and safer.

Step 7, convert one research job into multiple outputs

A good prompt should ask for at least four deliverables from one topic:

• A newsletter item.
• A blog post or article.
• A LinkedIn or Instagram caption.
• A short internal source note.

That way, one research cycle produces several assets.

Step 8, keep a human approval stage

Every output should be reviewed by a lawyer before publication.

The reviewer should check:

• Accuracy of the legal position.
• Whether the source is primary or merely reported.
• Whether the practical implication stated is too broad.
• Whether the content creates an unintended advisory relationship.
• Whether the tone is appropriate for the firm’s market positioning.

AI can help you move quickly, but the firm must still own the legal judgment.

How to set up a Custom GPT in ChatGPT

1. Open ChatGPT on the web and go to the GPTs area.
2. Create a new GPT.
3. Give it a focused name, for example, Nigerian Legal Content Editor or Regulatory Watch Desk.
4. Paste in the master instruction prompt set out below.
5. Upload your internal style guide, prior articles, disclaimer language, and sector notes as knowledge, if you want the GPT to reflect your internal standards.
6. Turn on web search in its capabilities so it can retrieve current information from the web.
7. Test it with a live topic, such as a recent circular, policy statement, or court decision.
8. Refine the prompt until the output consistently includes primary sources, practical implications, and review notes.

How to set up a Gem in Google Gemini

1. Open Gemini and go to Explore Gems, then create a new Gem.
2. Give it a focused name, such as Law Firm Newsletter Gem or Nigeria Regulatory Update Gem.
3. Paste in the same master instruction prompt below, with any small adjustments you want for Gemini.
4. Add your style guide, content checklist, prior publications, disclaimers, and target sector notes under its Knowledge section.
5. Run a test prompt on a current legal issue.
6. Use Gemini’s available source and verification features before accepting the draft.
7. Export the refined output to Google Docs or Gmail for the team to edit and circulate.

A note on confidentiality and internal policy

This is especially important for law firms.

Before uploading internal materials, every law firm should review its subscription terms, privacy settings, confidentiality obligations, and internal knowledge management policy. The safest starting point is to use these tools first for public source research, trend monitoring, topic generation, and non confidential drafting patterns.

Where client specific or privileged material is involved, apply a stricter internal rule and ensure the responsible partner or knowledge lead has approved the workflow.

The master prompt to paste into a Custom GPT or Gem

You can paste the following into the instruction area of a Custom GPT or Gem, then adjust the placeholders to suit your firm:

You are the content research and drafting assistant for a Nigerian law firm.

Your role is to help the firm identify, verify, summarise and draft legal and regulatory content for newsletters, website articles, client alerts, LinkedIn posts, Instagram captions and short commentary notes.

You must always work as a careful legal content researcher and editor, not as a final decision maker. Your output must be accurate, current, commercially relevant and easy for a lawyer to review.

JURISDICTION AND FOCUS
Primary jurisdiction: Nigeria
Secondary jurisdictions only when directly relevant: [insert if any]
Practice areas to monitor: [insert practice areas, for example fintech, telecommunications, oil and gas, tax, employment, dispute resolution, data protection, competition, corporate commercial]
Target audience: [clients, in house counsel, business executives, founders, general public, etc.]
Writing tone: polished, professional, commercially minded, clear, authoritative, not casual, not slangy
Preferred style: plain English, strong legal judgment, practical business implications, concise but substantive

CORE TASKS
1. Search for current legal, regulatory, judicial and policy developments relevant to the firm’s focus areas.
2. Prioritise developments from the last 30 days unless I specify another date range.
3. Focus first on official and primary sources.
4. Prepare content ideas and draft outputs that the firm can review and publish.
5. Always provide source notes and verification notes with every output.

SOURCE HIERARCHY
You must use this order of priority:
First, primary legal sources, including statutes, regulations, subsidiary legislation, court judgments, bills, official gazettes, circulars, notices, policy papers and consultation papers.
Second, official government, regulator, court, ministry, agency and institutional websites.
Third, official press releases, speeches, official blogs and official verified social media handles of the relevant institutions.
Fourth, reputable professional publications and credible mainstream media reports, but only as supporting context where an official source exists.

VERIFICATION RULES
1. Do not rely on one source where a primary or official source is available.
2. If a news report refers to an official circular, judgment, statement or roadmap, find and prioritise the original official source.
3. If sources conflict, identify the conflict clearly and say which source appears more authoritative.
4. Do not present assumptions as facts.
5. State clearly where information is preliminary, proposed, unconfirmed or developing.
6. If no reliable source is available, say so expressly.
7. Always separate confirmed facts from analysis.

OUTPUT RULES
For every assignment, return your answer in this order:

A. Topic title
B. Why it matters now
C. Key verified facts
D. Practical implications for clients or businesses
E. Draft outputs in requested formats
F. Source note
G. Review flags

SOURCE NOTE FORMAT
Always include:
1. Date of development
2. Primary source or official source used
3. Additional supporting sources used
4. Whether the matter is final, proposed, pending, disputed or unclear
5. Date you last checked the sources

REVIEW FLAGS
Always state:
1. Any uncertainty or unresolved issue
2. Any need for lawyer review before publication
3. Any point that requires the original instrument, judgment or circular to be read in full

CONTENT FORMATS
When asked to prepare content, be able to generate any of the following:
1. Newsletter item, 150 to 250 words
2. Blog post, 700 to 1200 words unless I specify otherwise
3. Client alert, 400 to 700 words
4. LinkedIn post, 120 to 220 words
5. Instagram or Facebook caption, 80 to 150 words
6. X post, under platform limit
7. Internal talking points for partners or BD teams
8. Headline options and content angles

STYLE RULES
1. Write like a top tier Nigerian commercial law firm.
2. Be clear, elegant and practical.
3. Avoid robotic wording.
4. Avoid exaggerated claims.
5. Do not give legal advice to the public unless specifically instructed, frame content as general information and commentary.
6. Where useful, explain the business impact in simple terms.
7. Where useful, provide two versions, one for lawyers and one for non lawyers.

WHEN I GIVE YOU A TOPIC
You must:
1. Confirm the exact issue being addressed.
2. Search for the latest verified information.
3. Identify and prioritise the official source.
4. Summarise the position accurately.
5. Draft the requested content.
6. Add a source note.
7. Add review flags.
8. Where appropriate, suggest 3 to 5 headline or social media angle options.

DO NOT
1. Invent authorities, dates, quotations or citations.
2. Use outdated reports where a newer official update exists.
3. Present commentary as if it were the text of the law.
4. Produce publish ready content without reminding that lawyer review is required.

DEFAULT DELIVERABLE
Unless I state otherwise, when I ask for a topic, produce:
1. A 900 word blog post
2. A 180 word LinkedIn post
3. A 120 word Instagram or Facebook caption
4. A short source note
5. Three headline options

A short operating prompt for day to day use

After you set up the Custom GPT or Gem, your team can use a shorter day to day prompt like this:

Find a current legal or regulatory development in Nigeria within the last 30 days in the area of [insert sector or practice area]. Use primary and official sources first. Summarise the issue, explain why it matters for businesses or clients, and draft:
1. a 900 word blog post,
2. a 180 word LinkedIn post,
3. a 120 word Instagram or Facebook caption,
4. a source note listing the official sources used,
5. review flags showing any uncertainty or point requiring legal review.

Write in a polished Nigerian law firm tone. Keep the analysis commercially relevant and easy for non lawyers to understand without losing legal accuracy.

Conclusion

The best way to use these tools is not to ask them vaguely for content ideas. Build a focused research and drafting workflow, define the source hierarchy, insist on official materials, require a source note every time, and keep a lawyer in the approval loop.

That is how Nigerian law firms can use language models intelligently, not as shortcuts for careless publishing, but as structured assistants for faster, better and more consistent legal content production.

The "Vanishing Code" Mystery in Google AI Studio

So, I have been using Google AI studio for a while now and I must say, its very good. I have been able to build my prototypes seamlessly. As an alumni of the Google Startup class, and having completed the "Prototype to Product" class, I’ve been pushing the boundaries of what these LLMs can generate.

However, as I moved from a simple one-page tool to a more complex application, I hit a strange wall: The Disappearing Feature.

The "Context" Paradox

You’d think with Gemini’s massive 2-million-token context window, the AI would remember every line of code you've written. But as my web app grew, I noticed something frustrating. I would ask the AI to add a new feature—say, a "Contact Us" section—and while it would build that section perfectly, it would suddenly "forget" or delete the complex logic I had built for my main tool in the previous step.

It’s like the AI is a brilliant architect with a very small desk; it’s so focused on the new blueprint that it knocks the old one onto the floor.

Why Is This Happening?

It’s not actually a "capacity" limit in terms of memory. It’s a conciseness bias. AI models are trained to give you the most efficient answer. When you ask for an update, the AI often:

1. Summarizes: It gives you the new part but replaces the old part with a comment like // ... rest of code stays the same.

2. Overwrites: It focuses on the new instructions so intensely that it "hallucinates" a simpler version of your existing features to save space in its output.

How I Fixed My Workflow (From Prototype to Product)

To graduate from a "messy prototype" to a "stable product," I had to change how I talked to AI Studio. If you’re building a multi-page app, here are the three rules I now live by:

1. Stop the Monolith: Don't keep your entire app in one file (like App.jsx). Tell the AI to break your app into Components. If the "Legal Tool" is in its own file, the AI can't accidentally delete it while you’re working on the "Navbar."

2. The "Full File" Mandate: I started adding this sentence to every prompt: "Do not use placeholders or comments like '//...rest of code.' Output the entire file so I can copy-paste it without breaking the app."

3. Use State Management: Instead of letting the AI decide how data flows, I instruct it to use a central "State." This ensures that adding a new page doesn't break how the existing pages talk to each other.

The Verdict

Google AI Studio is a powerhouse for rapid development, but as we move from Prototype to Product, we have to be the "Project Manager." We can't just ask the AI to "build more"; we have to tell it to "expand without replacing."

The Strategic Benefit of Google Workspace Essentials (Free Edition) for Law Firms

 

Executive Summary

In the ever-evolving legal sector, where confidentiality, efficiency, and collaboration are paramount, leveraging digital tools is not just beneficial, it is essential. One of the most compelling tools available to law firms today is Google Workspace Essentials Starter, a productivity and collaboration suite offered by Google entirely free of charge. Unlike the full Google Workspace (which requires paid subscriptions), Google Workspace Essentials Starter provides core tools: Google Docs, Sheets, Slides, Drive, Meet, and Chat, without the need to pay a kobo, purchase a domain, or replace your existing email provider.

This write-up explains how your law firm can unlock enterprise-grade technology at zero cost, enabling improved collaboration, streamlined workflows, and secure information sharing, all while maintaining control over your existing email systems.

---

1. No Cost to Use: A Powerful Suite at Zero Financial Burden

The most immediate and attractive benefit of Google Workspace Essentials Starter is its price: free. Law firms, particularly small to mid-sized practices or newly established chambers, often hesitate to invest in expensive IT systems. Google Essentials Starter bridges that gap by offering:

• No monthly or annual subscription fees.

• Seamless integration with existing domain (please see previous post)

• No infrastructure investment required.

This means your legal team can access Google’s world-class document creation, file storage, video conferencing, and messaging tools without affecting your existing budget or IT structure.

For resource-conscious law firms, this is a game-changer: a cost-free toolset that competes with (and often surpasses) premium software in functionality and security.

---

2. Preserve Your Existing Email System

Many law firms have invested in domain-specific email addresses (e.g., yourname@lawfirm.com) using platforms like Microsoft Outlook, Zoho Mail, or private mail servers as discussed in earlier post. One key advantage of Google Workspace Essentials Starter is that it:

• Works with any email address (no need to migrate to Gmail).

• Requires no DNS or MX record changes.

• Allows team members to sign up using their current firm email addresses.

This allows your firm to retain its professional branding while gaining access to Google’s collaboration platform, without the risks, costs, or complications of email migration.

---

3. Secure Cloud-Based Document Management via Google Drive

Google Drive provides 15 GB of free storage per user in the Essentials Starter edition, enabling your legal team to:

• Store contracts, pleadings, affidavits, opinions, and case files in the cloud.

• Access documents on any device (laptop, tablet, mobile).

• Share files securely with clients, counsel, or regulatory bodies.

• Manage documents using built-in version control, eliminating confusion over multiple drafts.

Unlike traditional file systems, Google Drive is equipped with enterprise-level encryption, and documents are automatically saved and backed up in real time.

This offers your law firm a secure, organized, and cost-free alternative to expensive document management solutions.

---

4. Real-Time Collaboration with Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides

Legal work often involves multiple contributors, including partners, associates, clients, and co-counsel, revising or commenting on the same documents. Google Workspace Essentials Starter offers:

• Simultaneous Editing of legal drafts, opinions, and transactional documents.

• Commenting and Suggestion Mode for internal reviews.

• Automatic Save and Version History, allowing lawyers to retrieve prior edits or drafts instantly.

All of these tools are available without license fees or software installations, directly from your browser.

---

5. Professional-Grade Virtual Meetings with Google Meet

Google Meet enables secure, high-definition video conferencing,  which is perfect for client briefings, inter-office meetings, virtual depositions, or remote mediations.

• Up to 100 participants per meeting.

• More than the normal 60-minute meeting limit per session (this is particularly one core advantage of moving to google workspace essentials. You dont need to worry on the video conference ending on the 60 minutes mark).

• No software installation needed; works in-browser.

Given the increasing reliance on remote work and hybrid court procedures, a free, high-quality video conferencing tool is an essential asset to any modern law firm.

---

6. Instant Messaging and Internal Coordination with Google Chat

Legal teams often struggle with long email threads and delayed responses. Google Chat simplifies internal communication by:

• Providing team-based channels and one-on-one messaging.

• Supporting file sharing and task discussion in real-time.

• Enabling quick, secure updates on case strategy, filings, and administrative matters.

This is particularly valuable for law firms operating across multiple departments or locations.

---

7. Data Security and Privacy Compliance

Even in the free edition, Google Workspace Essentials maintains robust security protocols, including:

• Two-Step Verification (2SV) for account access.

• Encryption of data at rest and in transit.

• Compliance with GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001, and SOC standards.

For law firms handling sensitive client data, trade secrets, or litigation material, Google’s security architecture helps ensure ethical and regulatory obligations are upheld.

---

8. Ease of Use and Minimal IT Burden

Google Workspace Essentials Starter is designed to be:

• User-friendly, requiring minimal training for staff.

• Accessible from anywhere, via mobile or desktop.

• Automatically updated, with no maintenance required by your IT team.

This makes onboarding fast and seamless, even for firms with no in-house IT department.

---

9. Scalable and Upgrade-Ready

While Essentials Starter is free, Google also offers paid upgrades (such as Google Workspace Business or Enterprise editions) that provide enhanced storage, administrative control, and compliance features. This means your law firm can:

• Start for free.

• Scale up as the firm grows or needs evolve.

• Transition to advanced features without changing platforms.

Your firm retains full control over whether and when to upgrade.

---

10. Real-World Applications for Law Firms

Here’s how law firms are already using Google Workspace Essentials Starter in practice:

• Document Sharing: A litigation team preparing a bundle of exhibits collaborates via Google Docs and Drive.

• Virtual Consultation: A solicitor holds a client call on Google Meet, sharing a document live for real-time edits.

• Internal Messaging: The firm’s admin team uses Google Chat to coordinate logistics and appointment schedules.

• Research Repository: A junior associate creates a shared folder with statutory extracts and judgments for a team working on a complex matter.

All of these use cases are supported, for free, through Essentials Starter.

---

Conclusion: A Free Tool That Adds Real Value

For law firms seeking a secure, modern, and cost-effective productivity platform, Google Workspace Essentials Starter is an obvious choice. It offers access to powerful collaboration tools without disrupting your existing email system or budget. In an industry where efficiency, confidentiality, and responsiveness are key, the ability to deploy world-class tools at zero financial cost provides a major competitive advantage.

Whether you are a sole practitioner, a boutique firm, or a large legal department, Google Workspace Essentials can help your team work smarter, communicate better, and serve clients more effectively, without spending a dime.

The Importance of Dedicated Domain Names and Professional Emails for Legal Practitioners in Nigeria

In today's digital age, professionalism extends beyond the courtroom and into the virtual space. For legal practitioners in Nigeria, having a dedicated domain name and professional email address is no longer a luxury—it is a necessity. Despite the low advertising visibility in our profession, a personalized domain and email can significantly enhance your credibility, branding, and client trust.

Why Legal Practitioners Should Avoid General Email Services

Using general email services like Gmail or Yahoo for professional communication might seem convenient, but it can create unnecessary hurdles. I recall a personal experience where a colleague reached out, distraught, because he had lost a lucrative brief from a commercial bank. The bank informed him that they would not accept correspondence from a general email service like Gmail. This demonstrates that many organizations expect lawyers to reflect professionalism even in their choice of email platforms.

General email services lack the exclusivity and trustworthiness that a professional email address communicates. It might raise doubts about the authenticity of your practice or correspondence, which could impact your ability to attract and retain clients.

Benefits of Having a Dedicated Domain and Email Address

1. Professional Outlook: A dedicated email address (e.g., info@yourlawfirm.com) gives clients and partners the impression of a well-organized and professional legal practice.
2. Branding: Having a domain name that reflects your practice, such as www.yourlawfirm.com, serves as a constant advertisement for your services. It reinforces your brand every time you send an email or share your web address.
3. Client Trust and Confidence: Professional emails are less likely to be flagged as spam. Clients are more confident communicating with an email address linked to a verified domain.
4. Compliance and Security: Professional email services like Zoho, Microsoft 365, or Google Workspace offer enhanced security features to protect sensitive client information. This is critical for a profession that handles confidential data.
5. Ease of Management: With a professional email, you can organize your communications effectively, integrate with calendars, and use additional productivity tools provided by email hosting platforms.

How to Get Started with Affordable Plans

Setting up a professional email address with a dedicated domain is easier and cheaper than most people think. Here are some reliable options to consider:

1. Zoho Mail:
1. Offers customizable email hosting with features like custom domains and calendar integration. Visit their website at Zoho Mail.
2. Google Workspace:
1. Provides professional Gmail, Google Drive storage, and collaboration tools. Learn more at Google Workspace.
3. Microsoft 365:
1. Includes Outlook email, Microsoft Office apps, and cloud storage. Explore plans at Microsoft 365.
4. Local Web Hosts:
1. Platforms like Whogohost (Whogohost), Speedyconnect and Smartweb Nigeria (Smartweb) offer domain registration and affordable email hosting packages tailored for Nigerian businesses.

Steps to Set Up Your Professional Email

1. Register a Domain Name:

Visit platforms like GoDaddy, Namecheap, Whogohost,  Speedyconnect and Smartweb Nigeria (Smartweb) to register a domain name that aligns with your practice name.

2. Choose an Email Hosting Service:

Select from Zoho Mail, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or local web hosting providers based on your budget and requirements.

3. Set Up and Configure:

Follow the step-by-step instructions provided by your chosen email hosting provider to link your domain and set up email addresses.

4. Migrate Old Emails (Optional):

Most providers offer tools to migrate your existing emails from Gmail, Yahoo, or other services.

Conclusion

In a profession as reputation-driven as ours, small steps like adopting a dedicated domain and professional email can make a significant difference. It not only enhances your image but also ensures that you meet the expectations of corporate and high-value clients. With affordable options available and a straightforward setup process, there’s no reason not to make the switch today.

Invest in your brand and let your email address reflect the professionalism you bring to your legal practice. After all, in a low-advertised field like law, every little edge counts.

Instances in which burden of proof will be on the person who makes a negative assertion

 "I am in no doubt that this argument of appellants about negative and positive assertions is misconceived, for while it is true that the burden of proof is generally on the person who substantially asserts the positive of an issue, and not on the person who makes a negative assertion, there is a caveat to that principle to the effect that where a negative assertion forms an essential part of a plaintiff's case (as it evidently is in the case of the appellants) the burden of proof of such allegation rests on him. The law on this point was lucidly stated by Bowen L.J. in Abrath v. N.E. Railway. Co 11 QBD 440 at 457 when he said that: "Now in an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has the burden throughout of establishing that the circumstances of the prosecution were such that the Judge can see no reasonable and probable cause for instituting it. In one sense that is the assertion of a negative, and we have been pressed with the proposition that, when a negative is made out, the onus of proof shifts. That is not so. If the assertion of a negative is an essential part of a plaintiff's case, the proof of the assertion still rests upon the plaintiff. The terms 'negative and affirmative' are after all, relative, and not absolute." ?See also Phipson on Evidence, 15th Edition, Paragraph 4.03 at page 56; The Article Burden and Standard of Proof, by Justice Niki Tobi in Chief Afe Babalola's Law & Practice of Evidence in Nigeria, and Muraina & Ors v. ?Omolade & Ors (1968) 359 @ 362. See also Sections 131, ?132 and 133 of the Evidence Act 2010 stating that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist; that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given, and that in civil cases, the burden of first proving existence or non-existence of fact lies is on the party against whom judgment would be given if no evidence were produced on either side. It is appellants who as plaintiffs sought declarations from the Court and wanted judgment on the basis of their claims and assertion of Respondents' alleged non-compliance with tradition and customs of installation of 3rd Respondent as Ponzhi Nagane. If no evidence was produced by either side, it is their case that would have been dismissed for lack of proof. What is more, under Nigerian Law custom is an issue of fact the burden of proof of which is on the person alleging its existence. See Section 16 of the Evidence Act 2010 and Onibudo v. Akibu (1982) 9 S.C. 29 @ 44, 46, 47. Appellants being the ones who founded their action on existence of tradition and custom that was according to them not observed by Respondents in the installation of 3rd respondent, they had the onus to prove it. I assume it is because they were also aware of that fact hence they entered the witness box first, instead of insisting that Respondents first do so. After all the law is settled that it is the party who bears the burden of proof on the pleadings, regardless of whether he is plaintiff or defendant, that first adduces evidence,: see Okoye v. Nwankwo (2014) ALL FWLR (PT 756) 471 @ 595 - 500, (2014) LPELR-23172 (SC); Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (PT 19) 799. Having failed woefully to prove their said custom let alone how it was breached by Respondents, they cannot now turn around now to say that the burden of proof was on respondents."  Per UGO ,J.C.A in DASHE & ORS V. DURVEN & ORS  (2019) LPELR-48887(CA)  (Pp. 14-17 paras. E-E)

Whether a public document tendered and marked rejected in the same course of proceedings can still be re-tendered and admitted into evidence

 

REGENCY (OVERSEAS) CO. LTD V. ARIORI & ORS (2019) LPELR-47281(CA)

 "The main issue in controversy is one dealing with whether a public document tendered and marked rejected in the same course of proceedings can still be re-tendered and admitted into evidence. It is the general position of the law that a document tendered and marked rejected is no longer admissible in evidence. See the cases of EBONYI STATE UNIVERSITY & ORS v ETENG (2012) LPELR - 19973 (CA); ADDISON UNITED NIG LTD v LION OF AFRICA INSURANCE LTD (2011) ALL FWLR (PT 594) 130; WASSAH & ORS v KARA & ORS (2014) LPELR - 24212 (SC). Indeed there is no dispute as to the fact that the proper foundation and certification necessary for the admissibility of the document in question was not complied with by the Respondents in the tendering of the document and the Appellant rightly objected to its admissibility which the Court then marked as rejected. The Respondents then went back to put its house in order by getting the document certified and re-tendered same which was now admitted in evidence. The lower Court in admitting of the earlier rejected document made a distinction between when the general position of the law will apply and what the exceptions are. The lower Court in its ruling at page 183 of the record held thus: "at this stage, I must point out that basically a party cannot seek to tender a document which had been rejected earlier in the proceedings, but this position of the law has two broad classifications (1) Where the document sought to be tendered is the proper one but rendered inadmissible by a provision of the law in itself i.e. qua that document itself. (2) Where the document is one which even though proper, must be put in a particular condition before it can be admitted, like secondary evidence of public records, private documents of which public records were kept, bankers books, etc. The document in issue here falls into the second classification above. In respect of those in the first classification, once rejected, they are taken to have been dealt with on their merits. However in respect of those in the second classification, when the document which then was not put in conformity with what type or copy of it the law allows to be tendered, and were so rejected on that ground, it is permissible for an applicant to obtain the proper copy admissible in law and seek to tender it. If an applicant does so and so applies, that will not be taken as a second bite at the cherry and such permissions will be granted. For the earlier decision refusing the tendering of the copy of the same document was based on the fact that the copy of it sought to be tendered was not put in the condition he law stipulates, such documents must be put before they are admissible in court proceedings." In the case of UZOMA v ASODIKE (2009) LPELR - 8421 (CA), this Court gave credence to the position of the lower Court when it held thus: "It is now settled that a wrongly certified or even an uncertified public document can be re-certified and re-tendered in evidence. See UMOGBAI v AIYEMHOBA (2002) FWLR (PT 132) 192 CA, (2002) 8 NWLR (PT 770) 687, and also LAW OF EVIDENCE IN NIGERIA - S.T. Hon at page 287. Poor certification is generally treated as mere irregularity, and the Court can order the document to be properly certified by curing the defect complained of." Also the Apex Court per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC in the case of TABIK INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR v GTB PLC (2011) LPELR - 3131 (SC) held thus: "The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the trial Court because Exhibits A, B1, B2 AND B3, public documents were not paid for. This is correct, but rejecting the document is rather harsh. The learned trial judge ought to have ordered counsel to ensure that the said documents are paid for, and after payment the trial continues." Based on the foregoing, it becomes obvious that the document in question (which there is no dispute as to the fact that it is a public document) was not rejected on the ground that it was inadmissible under the law, but on the ground that it was not tendered in accordance with the proper form required of a public document. By virtue of the provision of Sections 104 & 105 of the Evidence Act, a public document to be considered proper and admissible must first be certified. See also the cases of OKOREAFFIA & ANOR v AGWU & ORS (2010) LPELR - 4708 (CA); AGBALLAAH v NNAMANI (2005) ALL FWLR (PT 245) 1052 at 1078, paras D - E; DANIEL v ADAJI & ORS [1998] 11 NWLR (PT 574); AGBAJE v COKER (2016) LPELR - 40157 (CA). The Respondents in the course of the trial was able to get the document certified and brought into conformity with the proper and acceptable mode of a public document, the lower Court then had no qualms in admitting the earlier rejected document. Having gone to regularise the document, I have no difficulty in aligning my view with that of the lower Court and the Respondents. The tendering of the proper form of the document is akin to the party regularising its position which in no way prejudiced the Appellant. The apex Court also gave credence to this position on the basis that Courts must strive to do substantial justice rather than relying on undue technicalities. See the case of TABIK INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR v GTB PLC (Supra); OGUNNUBI v KOSOKO [1991] 8 NWLR (PT 210) 511; OLAOSEBIKAN v INEC & ORS (2009) LPELR - 8513 (CA); ADELUSOLA & ORS v AKINDE & ORS (2004) LPELR - 120 (SC); EROMOSELE v FRN (2018) LPELR - 43851 (SC). I also have no difficulty in holding that the re-admission of the document is permissible in the interest of justice. It is also now trite that the Court has moved away from the era of placing undue reliance on technicalities at the expense of the substance and justice of a case. See the cases of AKULAKU & ORS v YONGO [2002] 5 NWLR (PT 759) 135; BANK OF THE NORTH LTD & ANOR v C. T. AKPAJA [2002] 13 NWLR (PT 785) 617; DAKUT v DAKUR (2012) LPELR - 7921 (CA). The trial Court rightly held at page 183 of the record thus: "That was more or less a technical defect, and as such once that is cure by bringing a copy of the same document, which is in the condition or with the particulars, the law stipulates for their admission in Court proceedings, they will be allowed in." Therefore admitting the document in question will not in any way prejudice or overreach the case of the Appellant. At the end of the trial, the Court will weigh all evidence and decide the case based on a balance of probability. From the foregoing, once a public document is duly certified, there exists no impediment to its admissibility by the Court."

Per ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO ,J.C.A ( Pp. 5-11, paras. E-C )

Contract of Service / Contract for Service ??? - Factors to consider

The Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of SHENA SECURITY CO. LTD VS - AFROPAK (NIG) LID & 2 OTHERS (2008) LPELR 368/2002; (2008) 18 NWLR (pt.1118) 77, (2008)4-5 S.C (PT 11) 117 laid down the following factors that should guide counts in determining which kind of contract parties entered into.

a)     If payments are made by way of "wages" or "salaries" it is indicative that the contract is one of service. If it is a contract for service, the independent contractor gets his payment by way of "fee" in the case at hand; remuneration is neither payment of wages or salaries nor payment of fee. The contractual agreement was modeled upon an apprentice style where the labour of the servant is remunerated by way of settlement at the end of the contract to assist such servant or employee continue on his own rather than payment of monthly salary which the employee may not be able to save and startup a business of his own. The claimant was therefore; to be paid by way of settlement as against a "fee".

b)    Where the employer supplies the tools and other capital equipment, there is a strong likelihood that the contract is that of employment or of service. But where the person engaged has to invest and provide capital for the work to progress, it indicates that it is a contract for service. In claimant's case, the Defendants provided every work tool and the duty of the claimant was to receive stock, sale and account for sales etc. it is contract of service as against contract for service.

c)     In  a  contract  of service/employment,   it  is  inconsistent  for an employee to delegate his duties under the contract and thus where a contract allows  a   person  to  delegate  his  duties thereunder;   it becomes a contract for service. My lord, the terms of the agreement and nature of the claimants duties does not allow claimant to delegate his duties thus; an indicator of a contract of service.

d)    Where the hours of work are not fixed it is not a contract of employment or of service but that for service. In the instant case, the employment of the claimant is fixed by time hours of work this, indicative of contract of employment.

e)     It a not fatal to the existence of a contract of employment/of service that the work is not carried out on the employer’s premises. However, a contract which allows the work to be carried on outside the employer's premises is more likely a contract for service. In the case at hand the claimant carried on his contract at the premises of the defendant thus an indicator that the contract is one of service and not for service.

f)      Where office accommodation and secretary are provided by the employer, it is a contract of service/of employment. The defendants herein provided office accommodation and a secretary from the above guide set out by the Supreme Court in the case of SHENASECURITY CO. LTD - VS - AFROPAK (SUPRA) it can be safely concluded that the contract that existed between the claimant and the Defendant subject of this dispute was a contract of employment or of service and not a contract for service.