STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

APPELLANT MUST SUCCEED ON ITS OWN BRIEF – WHERE RESPONDENT FILED NO BRIEF

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

An issue may then be raised as to whether the non-filing of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument will make the Appellants appeal to succeed. All the some, the non-filing of the Brief of Argument in respect of this appeal by the Respondent to the issues ventilated by the Appellant in his Brief of Argument does not mean that it is a work-over for the Appellant. The Appellant still has to justify the appeal against the judgment or decision of the Learned trial Judge based on the strength of his case as borne and by the Records of appeal in this matter. The failure of a Respondent to file a reply Brief is immaterial. This is because an Appellant will succeed on the strength of his own case. But a Respondent will be deemed to have admitted the truth of everything stated in the Appellant’s Brief in so far as such is borne out by the Records. In other words, it is not automatic. An Appellant must succeed or fall on his own Brief.

– P.O. Elechi, JCA. Emori v. Egwu (2016) – CA/C/259/2013

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

proof

THE TWO FACETS OF BURDEN OF PROOF

The phrase burden of proof in civil cases has two distinct meanings which are; firstly, there is the pleadings, it is the legal burden of proof or the burden of establishing a case. Then secondly, there is the burden of proof in the sense of adducing of evidence, which is described as the evidential burden. The burden of proof in the first sense is always stable, but the burden of proof in the second sense, oscillates and constantly shifts like a chameleon changing its colour, according to how the evidence preponderates on the scale of justice. See the cases of ODUKWE VS OGUNBIYI (1998) LPELR- 2239 PAGE 1 AT 17; (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 561) 339, ADIGHIJE VS NWAOGU (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1209) 119 AT 463 AND OKOYE VS NWANKWO (2014) LPELR-23172 PAGE 1 AT 21; (2014) 15 NWLR (PT. 1429) 93. It is settled law, that in civil cases, the legal burden of proof in the sense of establishing a case lies on the claimant/Petitioner as in this petition, being the person who would fail if no evidence was adduced at all. However, this is not invariably so, as there are circumstances in our adjectival law, when the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. /Respondent as in this petition. See the cases of OSAWARU VS EZEIRUKA (1978) 6-7 SC 135 AT 145, NWAVU VS OKOYE (2008) LPELR-2116 PAGE 1 AT 31, (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 1118) 29 AND EZEMBA VS IBENEME (2004) LPELR-1205 PAGE 1 AT 20-21. AGAGU & ORS V MIMIKO 2009 LPELR 21149 (CA); BOLAJI & ANOR V INEC & ANOR 2019 LPELR 49447 (CA); SEN JULIUS ALIUCH & 1 OR V CHIEF MARTIN N. ELECHI 7 2 ORS 2012 LPELR -7823 SC PG 43 PARAS B-E.

— A. Osadebay, J. APC v INEC & Ors. (EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023, 20th Day of September, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

PLAINTIFF CANNOT RELY ON ADVERSARIAL CASE WEAKNESS

The law does not permit a plaintiff to rely on the weakness of his adversary’s case, unless same supports his claim. – Aderemi JCA. Irawo v. Adedokun (2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

BURDEN OF PROOF ALWAYS ON THE PROSECUTION; BURDEN FOR INSANITY ON THE ACCUSED

The law is trite, that in all criminal cases in common law countries like Nigeria which operates from time immemorial, common law jurisprudence, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. This notion is entrenched in Section 135 of the Evidence Act which further put the standard of such proof to be beyond reasonable doubt. SeeOgundiyan Vs The State (1991) 3 NWLR (pt.181)519 or (1991)4 SCNJ 44 or (1991)3 SC 100. It needs to be emphasized however, that the burden of proof always remains on the prosecution, except of course, in few limited circumstances such as in the defence of insanity in which the law presumes an accused person to be sane and therefore it casts the burden of establishing the contrary on the accused.

— A. Sanusi, JSC. Bassey v State (2019) – SC.900/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

THREE WAYS OF PROVING CRIMINAL OFFENCES

The law recognises three ways of proving criminal offences namely:- (a) Through confessional statement of the accused person; or (b) By direct eye witness account of the commission of the offence charged, or (c) through circumstantial evidence. See Akpan v State (2009) 39 WRN 27; (2008)14 NWLR (pt.1106)72; Bassey v State (2012) 12 NWLR (pt.1314)209; Haruna v AG Fed (2012)9 NWLR (pt.1306)419.

— A. Sanusi, JSC. Bassey v State (2019) – SC.900/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

THE PARTY WHO AFFIRMS THE POSITIVE TESTIFIES FIRST

In civil cases, proof is based on balance of probabilities and it rests on the party who asserts the affirmative, in this case the appellant and he failed to discharge the burden on him. Daodu v. N.N.PC. (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 538) 355 at 365 (SC); Lewis and Peat (N. R.I) Ltd v. Akhimien (1976) 7 SC 157 at 169; Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91; Elias v. Omobare (1982) 5 SC 25. The point has to be made that it is not in all instances where the usual or the norm must play out. This is because, certain peculiar features might be present which will change the course of events like who takes the first shot at the evidence. The courts and counsel should move away from discussing technical matters when the substantial matter in a case is the issue: Buhari v. A Obasanjo (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 258) 1604, (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 at 297; per Pats-Acholonu JSC; Broad Bank Nigeria Limited v. Alhaji S. Olayiwola and Sons Limited (2005)All FWLR (Pt.251) 236, (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 912) 434.

— M. Peter-Odili JSC. Nnaemeka Okoye & Ors. v. Ogugua Nwankwo (SC. 234/2004, 27 Jun 2014)

Was this dictum helpful?

CASE WHERE BURDEN WAS ON THE DEFENDANT

In Samson Ochonma v. Asirim Unosi (1965) NMLR 321 the facts are thus: The plaintiff in this case sued for a declaration of title to a piece of land, damages for trespass and an injunction. In his statement of claim, he pleaded that he was the owner of the land by right of inheritance, and the defendants admitted that he had at one time been the owner. The defendant in the statement of defence pleaded that the piece of land verged Red was the only piece of land which the defendant had ever obtained from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff made an absolute grant of it in 1936. The parties were agreed that the transaction of 1936, whatever its nature, included the payment by the defendant, to the plaintiff of a sum of money which they both described as “kola.” The Federal Supreme Court per Brett JSC held that the defendant having admitted that the plaintiff was the original owner of the land, the onus was on him to establish his plea that there had been an absolute grant to him.

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.