- Onuh V. Idu (2002) FWLR Pt 94 at 66. - Oladede V. Aromoaran II (1996) 6 NWLR Pt 453 at 180. We urge the court to reject the document sought to the tendered. Chile Okoroma Esq: We urge court to discountenanced with the objection of the learned counsel as misconceived and technical. We submit that we complied with the requirements of Section 89 (c) of the Evidence Act 2011. The witness testified to the fact that the original was lost and cannot find it. It naturally follows that he made efforts and cannot get it and the court is required to do substantial justice. What is required is substantial compliance with the law. Therefore, we submit that the witness led sufficient foundation to warrant the admissibility of the document. The defence counsel went to what is unnecessary at this stage because what we are doing now is admissibility of document as he went into the issue of weight. We submit the document is relevant to this proceedings, because the name of the purchases or has been mentioned Umar Yahaya but what is in the document is Mohammed Umar Yahaya. We finally urge the court to admit the document in evidence and discountenanced with the objection. Court: Ruling When the prosecution sought to tender a photocopy of a sale of a house at Bado Quarters, Sokoto in evidence through PW2, the defence counsel objected to its admissibility on the grounds that the witness did not led any foundation as required by Section 89 (c) of the Evidence Act, 2011; (ii) that the evidence of the witness relate to sale of a house between him and one Umar Yahaya while the document sought to be Page 12 of 43