Generally, the principle of law is that an unsigned document is not admissible as evidence because it is considered a worthless piece of paper with no evidential value. One of the rationale behind this is the lack of authenticity. A signature serves as a means of authenticating a document, signifying that the document has been reviewed, agreed upon, and endorsed by the signatory. Without a signature, there is no clear indication of who created the document or agreed to its contents, making it difficult to verify its authenticity. This principle of law has received judicial approval in a plethora of cases such as G.S.&D Ind Ltd v NAFDAC (2012) 5 NWLR (PT.1294)11; Adamu v Akogwu (2023) LPELR-59522(CA) among others.
Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this general rule. These exceptions are a product of judicial activism. In Chiagorom v Diamond Bank (2012) 44, N.L.L.R (Pt. 140) 335–159 (460 – 461, para H-D, P.464 Paras. C-D), the Court held that: “Unsigned documents should attract little or no evidential weight. Though many decisions say that an unsigned document is a worthless piece of paper that has no evidential value. It is not everything in writing that goes under the rubric of “document” that will lose its evidential worth simply because it is not signed”
These exceptions are:
• Oral Clarification. The purport of this exception is that if oral evidence is provided to clarify the document and its authorship, the unsigned document may be admissible. This means that if someone can testify to explain who made the document and what it means, the court may consider it valid evidence. As such, in Ashakacem v. Ashara Mubashshurun Investment Ltd (2019) LPELR-46541(SC), the purchasing manager of the appellant, who was one of the addressees on the email (Exhibit L), confirmed under cross-examination the details and authenticity of the email and its attachment. His testimony provided the necessary clarification that validated the document.
• Recognition and Acknowledgement by Parties exception states that even if a document is unsigned, it can still carry evidential weight if it is recognized and acknowledged by the parties involved. In U.L.O. Consultants Ltd v. La-Afos Global Links Ltd (2022) LPELR-57521(CA), the job orders (Exhibits A2 – A16) were issued by the Appellant and were recognized by the Appellant’s witness as emanating from the Appellant. Although the Appellant claimed that the documents were signed by unauthorized persons, this claim was not substantiated with evidence.
•Performance of Duty. A local purchase order is essentially an instruction to perform a duty or function, akin to a purchase instruction. Once the duty or function is performed based on the LPO, the validity of the document cannot be challenged on the grounds that it was not signed by the performer. The key factor is the performance of the duty or function as per the LPO, not the signature of the performer. U.L.O. Consultants Ltd v. La-Afos Global Links Ltd (2022) LPELR-57521(CA)
•Shipping Contract. This was supported by the precedent set in Awolaja & Ors v Sea Trade G.B.V(2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 758) 520 where it was held that the lack of a signature does not affect the validity of a contract of affreightment if the parties acknowledge and intend to be bound by it.
•Where a party refuses to sign a contract but performs the terms of the contract, it creates a binding estoppel. This is the recent exception held in the 2019 Supreme Court case of MTN (Nig.) Communications Ltd. v. Corporate Communications Inv. Ltd. [2019] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1678) 427.
In conclusion, these exceptions serve the purpose of ensuring that substantive justice is achieved.
Thank you for reading.🙏 See you next week❤️
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 