The issue of dumping documents on trial

When a party decides to rely on documents to prove his case there must be a link between the documents and the specific area(s) of the petition. He must relate each document to the specific area of his case for which the document was tendered. On no account must counsel dump documents on the trial court. No court would spend precious judicial time linking documents to specific areas. By mere dumping the documents which were tendered through counsel, there still remain questions or issues needing resolutions. In other words the nature of the documents that were tendered needed to be explained and related to the reason why they are produced; the identity of the witnesses through whom the documents were tendered was relevant; there was also the necessity that the documents be linked to specific areas or issues in the petition. The failure to identify the witnesses and specifically linking them to each of the documents was detrimental to the appellant's case. It is the failure of the appellant to call a witness to provide the necessary nexus between the documentary evidence tendered and the particular purpose or aspect of the case of the party tendering same that makes the difference between and the notion of dumping exhibits on the one hand and tendering bulk exhibits on the other. Buhari v. I.N.E.C (2008)18 NWLR (Pt.1120) 246 ; Ucha v. Elechi (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1317) 330; A.N.P.P. v. I.N.E.C (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1212) 549

Nuisance

Nuisance is a branch of the law of torts which is closely concerned with the protection of the environment. It covers areas such as pollution by Oil spillage or noxious fumes and other offensive smells from premises or noise generated from industrial concerns and other human activities, obstruction of public highways etc. The tort of nuisance can be conveniently categorized into public and private nuisance. A public nuisance is generally regarded as one which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of the public who came within the sphere or neighborhood of its operation. The tort would also be committed where a person carries on some activity which may in themselves not be unlawful but cause harm to or affects the general public or a section of the public. Private nuisance on the other hand may be described as an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over or in connection with such right. Private nuisance could therefore be in the form of physical injury of the plaintiff's property. It could also be in the nature of Interference with enjoyment of land, such as where the plaintiff is subjected to unreasonable noise or smell emanating from the defendant's neighboring land. The crucial issue in the law of private nuisance has always been how to strike a balance between the right of the defendant to use his land as he wishes, and the right of the Plaintiff to be protected from interference with his enjoyment of his own land. To strike a balance between the contending rights of the parties, the courts have held the view that, if the injury or interfere complained of is with respect to damage to land or user of such land, the injury or interference must be sensible, while if it is a case of Interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his land, the interference must be substantial. This is so because, the law on private nuisance is designed to protect the individual owner or occupier of land from substantial interference with his enjoyment thereof