The learned counsel for the respondent urged the Court to resolve this issue against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. I have considered this issue on the basis of the arguments proffered by learned counsel for the parties and the authorities cited and relied on by them. In addition, I have read the record of appeal, including the information filed by the respondent, the proceedings of the trial Court, the totality of evidence on record and the judgment of the trial Court. Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection of Delta State, Laws of Delta State, 2006 provides as follows: Any person who shall write any letter or document at the request, on behalf or in the name of an illiterate person shall also write on such letter or other document, his own name as the writer thereof and his 20 address, and in so doing shall be equivalent to a statement (a) that he was instructed to write any letter or document by the person for whom it purports to have been written and that the letter or document fully and correctly represents his instructions The above statutory provision is clear and unambiguous and its ordinary and plain grammatical meaning should be attached to it. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that where the words of a statute are simple and straightforward, the Court should adopt their ordinary grammatical meanings in the interpretation of the statute. See Ahmed v. Kassim (1958) 3 FSC 51; (1958) SCNLR 28; Yerokun v. Adeleke (1960) 5 FSC 126; Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (No. 2) (1981) 2 NCLR 293; Fred Egbe v. M.D. Yusuf (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.245) 1 and Attorney-General, Federation v. Attorney-General, Lagos State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1380) 249 at 319, per Alagoa, JSC. Applying the literal rule of interpretation to Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Law of Delta State, 2006, the document or letter, which requires a jurat, must have been written at the request of the illiterate person and the jurat is to state