We equally submit that the other accompanying documents which accompanied the said annexures are computer generated evidence which were not accompanied by a certifying document as required under Section 84 (4) (9), (b) and (c) of the Evidence Act 2011. These exhibits are therefore inadmissible evidence which ought to be expunged. And if this court do so, it means paragraphs 9-27 of the counter affidavit equally ought to be expunged because these paragraphs introduced these documents. Once a document is rendered inadmissible and expunged, the oral evidence is not better of as they go together. Similarly, the counter affidavit did not deny specific depositions in the Applicant’s supporting affidavit. The purported denials were general denial lumped together and which is not allowed in law. - Jukola Intl. Ltd V. Diamond Bank Plc (2016) 6 NWLR pt 1507 p 53 at 98. Where there is no specific denial, it amounts to an admission in law. - Ukarie V. EFCC (2018) 14 NWLR pt 1369 p 195 at 207. - Lawu V. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR pt 1608 p 60 at 118. What the respondent succeeded in doing, is a mere general denial which the Supreme Court frowns at in the case of UBN Plc V. Awmar Properties (2018) 10 Page 3 of 31