COMPUTER-GENERATED EVIDENCE: DISTINCTION BETWEEN "KUBOR V. DICKSON" 2013 4 NWLR (PART 1345) 534 AND "DICKSON V. SYLVA" 2017 8 NWLR (PART 1567) 167 BY CARRINGTON OMOKARO, ESQ.

Kubor v. Dickson (2013) (Part 1345) - This established the trite principle of compliance with S. 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 before tendering computer-generated evidence. Hence, tendering from the Bar, a computer printout of the online version of the Punch Newspaper, and another printout from the website of the Independent National Electoral Commission without evidence in relation to the use of the computer called to establish the above conditions made the document inadmissible.

Dickson v. Sylva 2017 (Part 1567) -  First, it was established, making reference to R v. Shepherd (1993) that S. 84 can be complied with by either oral evidence under S. 84(1) & (2) or by certificate under S. 84(4). Tendering of a certificate, however, is subject to the power of the judge to require oral evidence in addition to the certificate. 

Secondly, this case was not on failure to comply with S. 84. The question that arose was if it was mandatory to still certify the gadget used in playing an electronic document already admitted upon compliance with S. 84. The apex court held that once the computer-generated evidence complies with S. 84 and admitted in evidence, there is no requirement for certification of the gadget used to demonstrate or play the electronically generated document. Hence, it is not the law that you also need to certify a DVD player that is to be used in playing a CD that has been admitted in evidence upon compliance with S. 84.