The level of proof needed in the circumstances of this case is as per the required standard of proof in civil case, it is a cardinal principle of law that civil cases are decided on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. See the cases of Emeka v. Chuba- Ikpeazu and Ors., (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1583) 345, A.B.C. (Transport Company) Ltd. v. Miss Bimmi Omotoye (2019) LPELR-47829 (SC).
— S.J. Adah, JCA. Luck Guard v. Adariku (2022) – CA/A/1061/2020
SHARE ON
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
Burden of proof is two-fold. The first is the abitity of a plaintiff to establish and prove the entire or reasonable portion of his case before a court of law that can give judgment in his favour. This is always constantly on the plaintiff. The other type is related to particular facts or issues which a party claims exist. It is this burden of proof that oscillates from one party to the other. While the first type of burden of proof is called legal burden or the burden of establishing a case, the second one is called evidential burden Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd v. Ekpo (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt.856) 100 at 122, (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 248) 1667; Ogule Ankpa Agatu Co-operative Group Farming Society v. Nigeria Agricultural and Co-operative Bank (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt.590) 234 … While the legal burden of proof is always stable or static, the burden of proof in the second sense i.e. evidential burden of proof may oscillate constantly accordingly, as one scale of evidence or the other preponderates.
— M. Peter-Odili JSC. Nnaemeka Okoye & Ors. v. Ogugua Nwankwo (SC. 234/2004, 27 Jun 2014)
Now, civil suits are decided on the balance of probabilities, on the preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof is not static but shifts and the onus of adducing further evidence is on the person who will fail if such evidence is not adduced. See Osuji v Eke [2009] 16 NWLR (Pt 1166) 81.
— O.A. Obaseki-Osaghea, J. Akinsete v Westerngeco (2014) – NICN/LA/516/2012
“10. Defendant contended that the fact that the plaintiff did not’ testify himself or call witnesses to testify on his behalf amounts to a waiver of his claim as there is no substantiating evidence upon which judgment can be granted in his favour. Defendant urged the Court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim as it is unverified and unsubstantiated. With respect, this position canvassed by the defendant is not tenable at law. A plaintiff can prove his case either by relying on documents or by providing oral evidence or he could use a combination of both. A party is free to prove his case by any means he deems appropriate.”
— Ayika v Liberia (2012) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/09/12
It is settled law that where the party offers no evidence in defence of the case of the plaintiff, the burden placed on the plaintiff is minimal, since there is no evidence to challenge the case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff can use the unchallenged evidence to establish his case. – Onnoghen JSC. Chami v. UBA (2010)
It is to be noted that in civil cases, the proper question for the Court to determine in order to effectually and completely determine the case between the parties is: Whether the Plaintiff has proved his case upon preponderance of evidence as required by law? This question is in line with our law, that the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove his case by preponderance of evidence and the burden of proof does not shift. There is a plethora of judicial authorities on this. Let me quote extensively what the Court said in Odum v. Chibueze (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 848) 714 at 742 743 to wit: “Now, one of the most firmly established principle of legal adjudication is that in a civil suit, the person who asserts a fact has the primary burden of proving the assertion. This is explained by the maxim “ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probation” which means the burden of proof lies on one who alleges, and not on him who denies Arum v. Nwobodo (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 411, (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 246) 1231; Olaleye v. Trustees of ECWA (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 565) 297, (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1230) 1; Imonikhe v. Unity Bank – Plc. (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 586) 423; (2011) NWLR (Pt. 1262) 624. In other words, the onus of proof of an issue rests upon the party whether claimant or Defendant who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. It is fixed at the beginning of the trial by the state of the pleadings as it is settled as a question of law, remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleading place it and never shifting in any circumstance whatever. In deciding what party asserts the affirmative, regard must be had to the substance of the issue, and not merely to its grammatical form which the pleader can frequently vary at will. The true meaning of the rule is that where a given allegation whether affirmative or negative, forms an essential part of a party’s case, the proof of such allegation rests on him Elemo v. Omolade (1968) NMLR 359; Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 6 SC 83; Atane v. Amu (1974) 10 SC 237; Kate Enterprises Ltd v. Daewoo (Nig.) Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 116 and Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 577) 650, (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1232) 538.”
— I.E. Ekwo J. Mbah v. NYSC, Ibrahim Muhammad (FHC/ABJ/CS/611/2023, 10-NOV-2023)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry