PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Where the foundation of a plaintiff's claim is a contract agreement pleaded in the statement of claim, but that document is not produced at trial, it would be mere speculation to determine the nature of the transaction between the parties; the foundation of the case must be proved.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Kawu, JSC, in Kano v. Oyelakin (1993) NLC-431989(SC) at pp. 34–35; Paras A–B.
"The foundation of the plaintiff's claim in the trial court was the contract agreement pleaded in paragraph 6 of his statement of claim. That document was, however, not before the trial court, and in the circumstances, it would be mere speculation to determine the nature of the transaction between the parties."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

When pleadings identify specific documents as the foundation of claims, those documents must be proved through production, authentication, and admission. Without the foundational document, courts cannot verify its existence, determine its terms, assess whether it supports the claimed rights, or evaluate alleged breaches. Attempting to decide cases without foundational documents constitutes “mere speculation.” The consequence is dismissal—courts cannot supply missing evidence through conjecture or accept oral testimony as substitute when documents should be produced. This enforces basic evidentiary rules: pleadings must be proved; documentary transactions require best evidence (the document itself); courts decide on evidence, not speculation. Parties must secure necessary documents before trial or risk losing cases dependent on them.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE