DILKON VS DILKON- Court Admits Document, Says It's Vital
High Court Of Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria |
By Udante Ugante
Justice David Mann of High Court 3 Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria today
admitted in evidence Apex News Magazine
publication of October 10th, 2014 in evidence in the ongoing divorce
case between Mrs. Joy Dilkon (Petitioner) and Hon. Leonard Dilkon (Respondent
and cross Petitioner). Counsel to the respondent, Francis Okafor had sought to
tender the document but both counsel to the Petitioner, Mrs. J. L. Usoroh and
that of the party cited, (Evangelist Danjuma Fwenji) Tayo Otitoju vehemently
objected arguing that the same document was sought to be tendered in October,
2015 but was rejected and is so marked.
According to the Counsel, “it is our submission that where a document is
tendered but rejected that it cannot be re-admitted in the same
proceeding. Furthermore, we argue that
such document though, private but is public document and can be only tendered
through a librarian.”
Counsel to the Petitioner further cited relevant
authorities to support their position and urged the court to reject the
application to re-tender document that was once rejected on the same matter
adding that anything contrary, will amount to the court sitting on appeal on the
matter.
However, Counsel to the respondent argued on point
of law and urged the court to discountenance the authorities cited by counsels
to the Petitioner and party cited and further drew the attention of the court
to the fact that there were three (3) substantive matters before it which
include:
- Case
1 Petition by the Petitioner
- Case
2 Cross Petitioner
- Case
3 A case against the party cited.
“So my Lord is writing three judgments. That is the position of the law. Consequently, it is our submission that a
document in case 1 may be rejected but admitted in case 2 on the same
proceeding depending on the specific purpose for such document which is being
sought to be tendered”. He gave an
instance of a titled document without stamp duty paid upon which can be
admitted as payment receipt but not document conferring ownership of
property. He cited (Supreme Court
judgment) Okond Vs Njokama 1999 Nigeria Law Report part 638 pg 250.
He added that all the authorities cited by the
Counsel to the Petitioner and the parties cited have no semblance to the
current matter. “In the present case, it is not that we are re-tendering but
this is a document that has already been pleaded as contained in paragraph 2
(A) of the respondent’s statement on oath unlike last year when we wanted to
tender for the purpose of cross examining the petitioner which was rejected
because it was not pleaded.
“My Lord, I urge you to accept this application
because it is already pleaded in paragraph 2 (A) and are document the
Respondent is relying on to prove that the party cited (Evang. Danjuma Fwenji)
is a fake man of God and if not accepted, will amount to denying the respondent
his source of prove that Evang. Danjuma Fwenji is fake and home breaker. I therefore, urge you to dismiss their
submission.
In his ruling, Justice Mann said that having
considered the submissions of all counsels, that the authorities cited by
counsels to the petitioner and the party cited had no link whatsoever to the
current matter and therefore admitted the document as evidence and marked
exhibit 10. The case was adjourned to
Wednesday, 9th November, 2016 for cross examination.
It will be recalled that in 2014, Mrs. Joy Dilkon had petitioned the court for the dissolution of marriage against her husband, Hon. Leonard Dilkon on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. In his response and cross petittion, Hon. Dilkon is seeking the following reliefs.
It will be recalled that in 2014, Mrs. Joy Dilkon had petitioned the court for the dissolution of marriage against her husband, Hon. Leonard Dilkon on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. In his response and cross petittion, Hon. Dilkon is seeking the following reliefs.
An order dismissing the petition, a decree of
dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, on the
ground that since seven years, the Petitioner has behaved in such a way that
the Respondent cannot reasonably expected to live with her because she has been
committing adultery with one Evangelist Danjuma Goshwe Fwenji.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
MOST RECENT STORIES
Post a Comment