STATE (2018) LPELR-43601 (SC); and AROGUNDADE VS THE STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 469) (SC) 423 The Contentions in regard to Hearsay will be dealt with in the determination of the Case. As regards the Contention of the Defence that the Proper Party to testify on behalf of Salman Global Ventures Nigeria Limited was its Managing Director, Alhaji Ibrahim Abubakar and not PW14, Mr. Dandison Akurunwa Esq., the Company Secretary (it is note worthy that the Defence elected to disregard his proper designation as a Company Secretary and preferred to refer to him as Secretary, simpliciter.), and also the reference to Evidence of PW13, Mrs. Oyewo Ganiat the Unity Bank, Relationship Officer and her Competence to testify, the Court refers to the Case of CHEMIRON (INTL) LTD V. STABILINI VISINONI LTD (2018) LPELR-44353 (SC), where Her Lordship, PETERODILI, J.S.C. (Pp. 17-20, Paras. B-A)held that a Body Corporate carries out its Affairs and Responsibilities through its Agents and Servants who are Human Persons. This was restated by the Court per COKER- JSC IN KATE ENTERPRISES LTD V DAEWOO NIGERIA LTD (1985) 2 NWLR (PT5) 116, who HELD that any Servant or Agent of the Company acting for the Company would meet the requirement of testifying on behalf of the Company. It is not necessary that it is only that Person who carried out the function on behalf of the Company that must testify. Any Official of the Company well equipped with the Transaction and or related Documents would suffice to testify. Her Lordship also referred to the Cases of ANYAEBOSI V RT BRISCOE NIG. LTD (1987) 2 NWLR (PT.59) 84; KATE ENTERPRISES LTD V DAEWOO NIGERIA (SUPRA) and SALEH V B. O. N. LTD (2006) NWLR (PT.976) 316 AT 326 – 327, to sayeven where the Official giving the Evidence is not the one who actually took part in the Transaction on behalf of the Company, his Evidence is nonetheless relevant and admissible and will not be discountenanced or rejected as Hearsay Evidence..... 61