Effect of rebuttable presumptions. Applying rebuttable presumptions. Effect of certain presumptions in criminal actions. Applying presumptions in jury trials. Facts recited in written instrument. Estoppel by own statement or conduct. Estoppel of tenant to deny title of landlord. Estoppel of licensee to deny title of licensor. Estoppel of bailee, agent or licensee.
Death after seven years absence. Owner of legal title is owner of beneficial title. Official duty regularly performed. Ordinary consequences of voluntary act. The law of a foreign country is presumed to be the same as the law of Ghana. A person is presumed to be of full age and of sound body.
An obligation delivered up to the debtor is presumed to have been paid. Possession of order to pay or deliver. Possession of obligation by creditor. An obligation possessed by the creditor is presumed not to have been paid. Partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.
Exclusion of relevant evidence. The Court may exclude relevant evidence if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by a considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence; or b the risk that the admission of the evidence will create substantial danger of unfair prejudice or substantial danger of confusing the issues; or c the risk, in a civil action, where a stay is not possible or appropriate, that the admission of the evidence will unfairly surprise a party who has not had reasonable grounds to anticipate that the evidence would be offered.
Evidence of character not admissible to prove conduct. Remedial and precautionary measures. Offers to plead guilty, withdrawn pleas of guilty. Presiding justice disqualified as a witness. A justice sitting at the trial may not testify as a witness in that trial. Mode and order of interrogation. The Court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to a make the interrogation and presentation as rapid, as distinct, and as readily understandable as may be, and b protect witnesses from being unduly intimidated, harassed or embarrassed.
Cross-examination of non-adverse witness. Adverse witness in a civil action. Prior inconsistent statement or conduct. Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement. Unless the Court otherwise determines, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness which is inconsistent with a part of the testimony of the witness at the trial shall be excluded unless, a the witness was so examined while testifying as to give the witness an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement; or b the witness has not been excused from giving further testimony.
Writing used to refresh memory. Attacking or supporting credibility. A party may attack or support credibility. Court may order proof by affidavit.
Affidavit to be filled. Affidavit sworn in Nigeria. Proof of seal and signature. Affidavit not to be sworn before certain persons. Affidavit defective in form. Amendment and re-swearing of affidavit. Contents of affidavits. Conflicting affidavits, Form of affidavits. Provisions as to altered affidavit. Proof of facts.
Facts admitted need to be proved. Facts of common knowledge need not be proved. Proof of facts by oral evidence. Oral evidence must be direct.
Inspection when oral evidence refers to real evidence. Evidence as to interpretation of documents. Application of this Part. Burden of proof. On whom burden of proof lies. Burden of proof in civil cases. Standard of proof in civil cases. Burden of proof as to particular fact. Standard of proof where burden of proving fact, etc. Burden of proving fact necessary to be proved to make evidence admissible.
Burden of proof in criminal cases. Proof of facts especially within knowledge. Exceptions need not be proved by prosecution. Burden of proof as to ownership. Rules as to presumptions by the court.
Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. Presumption as to documents produced as record 0 f evidence. Presumption as to powers of attorney. Presumption as to public maps and charts. Presumption as to books. Presumption as to telegraphic and electronic messages. Presumption as to due execution of documents not produced. Presumption as to handwriting, etc. Proper custody defined. Presumption as to date of documents.
Presumption as to stamp of a document. Presumption as to sealing and delivery. Presumption as to alternative. Presumption as to age of parties to a conveyance or instrument. Presumption as to statements in documents twenty years old. Presumption as to deeds of corporation.
Presumption of death from seven years absence and other facts. Presumption of legitimacy. Presumption of marriage. Court may presume existence of certain facts. Presumptions of regularity and of deeds to complete title. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession. Estoppel of bailee, agent and licensee. Estoppel of person signing Act of lading. Judgment conclusive of facts forming ground of judgment. Effect of judgment not pleaded as estoppel. Who may testify.
Dumb witnesses. Parties to civil suits and their wives or husbands. Competence in criminal cases. Competence of person charged to give evidence Comment on failure by defendant to give evidence. Evidence by husband or wife, when compellable. Witness not to be compellable to incriminate himself. Production of title deeds or other documents of witness not a party. Production of documents which another person could refuse to produce. Evidence by spouse as to adultery. Communications during marriage.
Evidence as to affairs of State. Official communication. Professional communication between client and legal practitioner. Section to apply to interpreters and clerks. Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence. Confidential communication with legal advisers. Corroboration in actions for breach of promise of marriage. Co-defendant not an accomplice. Number of witnesses. Treason and treasonable offences. Evidence on charge of perjury. Exceeding speed limit.
Oral evidence to be on oath or affirmation. The law demands that the certificate, inter alia, identifies the electronic document containing the statement, and describes how it is produced and gives the particulars of the device involved in the production of the document, to show that the document was produced by a computer, and purporting to be signed either by a person occupying a responsible official position with the operation of the relevant device, or the management of the relevant activities, whichever is appropriate.
By far, the most volatile and seemingly intractable provision is section 84 4 which, as stated above, commands the production of a certificate to authenticate the computer that produced an electronic document.
The subsection has engendered many conflicting court judgments and thrust more questions than answering them. Several issues generated under the subsection have taxed and continued to tax the courts. These issues have also tested the capacity of courts at interpretation as well as their malleability. To date, the courts are still embroiled in many questions engendered by section 84 4.
These questions, some of which remain, so far, unanswered, necessitate a reiteration of my call for an update of section 84 4 by way of an overhaul. In the past editions of the Criminal Law Review Conference, I called for the abrogation of section 84 4 and suggested that the subsection should give way to a simple presumption that electronic devices worked well when they produced the affected documents until the contrary is proved. I also posited that the onus should be on the party who holds a contrary view to prove the same.
My approach to section 84 4 is premised on the basic notion that no law is enacted to hamper the dispensation of justice. The enactment of section 84 of the Evidence Act, therefore, I submit, was meant to facilitate the admissibility of electronic evidence and not to hinder it. It is also my view that the law cannot be static, it must be dynamic. The law relating to the admissibility of electronic evidence is expected to be a handmaid of justice.
It is pertinent to note that section 84, generally, deals with conditions precedent for admission of electronically-generated documents. From my experience as a trial court judge, I have come to discover that a certificate under section 84 4 is no more than a formal document prepared to satisfy the provisions of section 84 4. A certificate under section 84 4 of the Evidence Act does not conclusively prove the facts contained in the electronic document or establish the truth of it.
Indeed, I see a certificate, under section 84 4 as part of a cumbersome process militating against the admissibility of electronic evidence, and by extension, the administration of justice. Therefore, it is high time that the National Assembly reviewed section 84 and provided simple provisions for tendering electronic documents to ensure speedy justice in line with the modern trend around the world, which shall be discussed very shortly.
Provisions such as we have in section 84 are now being treated as becoming outdated in other climes. Recently, I delivered a paper on the admissibility of electronically-generated evidence at the Induction Course for Newly Appointed Judges and Kadis at the National Judicial Institute here in Abuja.
At the end of my lecture, one of the participants approached me, privately, and expressed her opinion to me that, from the many things I had said and written about Section 84 of the Evidence Act, it appeared to her that I did not like Section 84 4.
0コメント