Flaws are present in every solution for editing every document type, and despite the fact that you can use a lot of tools on the market, not all of them will suit your particular requirements. DocHub makes it much simpler than ever to make and modify, and handle documents - and not just in PDF format.
Every time you need to swiftly expunge evidence in CWK, DocHub has got you covered. You can quickly alter document components such as text and pictures, and layout. Personalize, organize, and encrypt files, create eSignature workflows, make fillable documents for stress-free data collection, and more. Our templates feature enables you to create templates based on documents with which you often work.
Moreover, you can stay connected to your go-to productivity tools and CRM solutions while handling your files.
One of the most remarkable things about using DocHub is the option to manage document activities of any difficulty, regardless of whether you require a fast modify or more complex editing. It includes an all-in-one document editor, website document builder, and workflow-centered tools. Moreover, you can be sure that your documents will be legally binding and comply with all security frameworks.
Shave some time off your tasks with DocHub's capabilities that make handling files straightforward.
hello guys and welcome to another episode of my lecture Iamp;#39;ve spoken in my previous lecture about you know the rule one of the nature of a confessional statement in this particular lecture Iamp;#39;ll be talking about the rule two of the nature of a confessional statement and let us go straight to my notes now rule two states that if a court of law reject a confessional statement for being tendered in evidence or expunges it in its judgment it can still validly rely on the oral version of the confessional statement made by the defendant to any of the prosecution witnesses now this was made clear in the case of arog Gund versus the state by on Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria Justice onog said the Learned Council for the appellant is under the erroneous impression that the original written confession of the appellant havenamp;#39;t been exped from the record on whatever ground the orac confession made by the appellant to pw5 that prosecution witness 5 is thereby rendered
