Computer Generated Document
By Chioma A Okeke
Ordinarily, one expects that the above question ought not to
have arisen but having witnessed where a lawyer had strenuously
argued the issue; it became pertinent for me to discuss the
issue.
Section 84 of the Evidence Act regulates the admissibility of
statement in documents produced by computers or e-documents down
loaded from the internet.[1]
A statement, in a general sense, is an allegation, a
declaration of matters of fact, etc,[2] while a
document is an instrument on which is recorded information or
facts. It contains statements and it is any physical embodiment of
information or ideas.[3]
By the provisions of section 258 of the Evidence Act, a document
includes any devise by means of which information is recorded,
stored or retrievable, including computer output. Under the same
section, computer means any device for storing and processing
information, and any reference to information being derived from
other information is a reference to its being derived from it by
calculation, comparison or any other process.
Section 84 prescribes the means and method by which CGDs are to
be produced and admitted in evidence. This section sets out certain
conditions which should be complied with before a CGD is admitted
in evidence. According to the Court of Appeal,
In this digital age when different creations can be achieved
electronically, the reason for the requirement of authentication or
certification of the gadget or computer used in producing and
processing the electronically-generated documents is not
far-fetched. The party seeking to rely on such evidence must be
able to show that the data and information contained in the
electronically-generated document is truly what it claims to be.
The preconditions for admissibility set down by Section
84 are to establish this fact.[4]
By section 84, these conditions
are:-
1.That the document containing the statement was produced over a
period over which the computer was used regularly,[5]
the kind of information contained in the statement supplied
regularly,[6] the computer used was operating
properly,[7] and information in the statement was
supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities
of time.[8]
| Where several or a combination of computers are involved for the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period aforementioned, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of admissibility as constituting a single computer. Of course, for the court to be satisfied that the first 2. That there must be a certificate accompanying the document (a) identify the document sought to be tendered and the manner (b)state particulars of the device involved in printing the (c)be signed by a person in a responsible position in relation All the above contents (a –c) must be evident in the From the foregoing, it is the humble submission of this writer Who should Sign the Certificate and Own the used in Producing the CGD? It is clear, from the above provisions of the Evidence Act that In Hon. Henry Seriake Dickson V. Chief Timipre Marlin Sylva It is understandable that if a certificate is to be relied upon Again, the section does not require who should own the device |
Written By Chioma A Okeke
[1] Kubor & Anor V. Dickson & ORS (2012)
LPELR-9817(SC); P. D. Hallmark Contractors Nigeria Ltd & Anor
V. Gomwalk (2015) LPELR-24462(CA); Omisore and Anor v.
Aregbesola & Ors. [2015] 15
NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205, 295
[2] C H Black, Black’s Law Dictionary Special
Deluxe (5th Edn West Publishing Co, 1979); Willian
Burton, Burton’s Legal Thesaurus (4th Edn
McGraw-Hill, 2006).
[3] Hon. Henry Seriake Dickson V. Chief Timipre
Marlin Sylva & Ors (2016) LPELR-41257(SC).
[4] Hon. Henry Seriake Dickson V. Chief Timipre
Marlin Sylva & Ors
[5] Sec 84(2) (a), EA.
[6] Sec 84(2) (b), EA.
[7] Sec 84(2) (c), EA.
[8] Sec 84 (2) (d), EA.
[9] Sec 84(4) (b) (2) EA.
[10] Ibid.
[11] (2016) LPELR-41257(SC)