This Principle was further adopted in COMET S. A.NIGERIA LTD VS BABBIT NIG LTD (2001) 7 NWLR (PT.712) PG.442, 452 PARA. B, PER GALADIMA JCA(as he then was, now J.S.C.), whoheld that Companies have no flesh and blood. Their existence is a mere legal abstraction. They must therefore, of necessity, act through their Directors, Managers and Officials. Any Official of a Company well placed to have personal knowledge of any particular transaction in which a Company is engaged can give Evidence of such Transaction. An Offshoot of this Contention is the argument in regard to Documentary Hearsay in respect of Exhibits VV1 and VV2,which werethe Query from the Ministry of Finance sent to the Chief Stores Officer, and his Reply to the Query.These Exhibits were tendered through the Defendant during his Cross-Examination for which Learned Counsel to the Defence argued that the Document was unsigned, and the Defendant was not the Maker of the Document and therefore, was not a Competent Witness to say anything on the Document, and therefore the Document was inadmissible. It was held in the Court of Appeal’s Decision in the Case of ACHUKU VS STATE (2014) LPELR-22651, Per OGBUINYA J.C.Athat the tendering of a Document is sufficient as it effectively dispels with the attendance of the Maker to Court. The failure to call the Maker as a Witness does not vitiate the admission and validity of the Document, de jure, isusage by the Lower Court. See also the Case of OLUBODUN & ORS V. LAWAL & ANOR (2008) LPELR2609 (SC), PER OGBUAGU, J.S.C (PP. 61-62, PARAS. F-C), reference was made to Oputa, JSC in the Case of THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL BENDEL STATE & 2 ORS. V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA LTD. (1986) 4 NWLR (PT.337) 547 @ 563, who held stated that he was aware that a Document could be Primary/Original or Secondary, but had never heard of Documentary Hearsay, as there is no such Provision under the Evidence Act. What he knew was that Documentary Evidence, is the Best Evidence. A Document tendered in Court, is the best proof of the contents of such a Document and no Oral Evidence will be allowed to discredit or contradict 62