“In case of forgery, it is essential to prove that accused forged the document in question by calling evidence of persons whose signatures are alleged to be forged to deny or confirm that they signed the document” In the same law report MICHAEL ALAKE v STATE (Supra) his lordship Kutigi JSC held as follows: “I agree with Prof. Kasunmu that Ajadi and Lawsweerde were vital and material witnesses in the case. They were persons whose signatures were alleged to have been forged. I think failure to call them to deny or confirm their signatures on the cheques was clearly fatal to the case of the prosecution; the evidence of handwriting analyst (PW6) not withstanding. Their evidence would have settled the point in issue once and for all. Appellant’s conviction for forgery cannot therefore stand” Although Exhibit C the subject matter of the forgery tell lies about itself when compared with Exhibit B, forgery is proved where the lie is exposed and confirmed. See BABATOLA v STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 115) 264. In the instant case, the person whose signature was forged and who is a vital witness was not called to confirm whether his signature was forged or not, this court must follow the earlier Supreme Court case cited. See OGBU v URUM (1981) 4 SC 1 where the Supreme Court held as follows: “The doctrine of Stare decisis, that is, follow what has been decided previously is a corollary of the Common Law System, it 12