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
In the case of Registered Trustees of Association of Former Telecom Employees of Nigeria &17,102 Ors. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors; ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/19, when this court held that: “It follows therefore that once the claimant makes out a prima facie case of entitlement to pension, by proof of employment but lacks access to the key information needed to substantiate his claim same being in the control of Respondent, such claim cannot fail due to being unsubstantiated. It is a recognized fact that salary records and computations matrix are in the normal cause of events in the custody and preserve of the employer in this case the Respondent. The burden to provide records of the pension entitlement of the Applicant having shifted to the Respondent, the Applicants are exonerated from proving their entitlement.”
It is however settled law that it is the duty of the prosecution to establish or prove the charge/case against an accused person. In other words, it is the prosecution that bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person. For the court to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has discharged the burden placed on it by law, it must be satisfied that the conclusion is beyond reasonable doubt as it is settled law that any doubt existing in such a case must be resolved in favour of the accused person. In other words, the standard of proof in criminal trials is that of prove beyond reasonable doubt.
— Onnoghen, JSC. Njoku v. The State (2012)
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
While oral agreement has the legal capacity to re-order or change the contents of an earlier written agreement, to satisfy the basic requirements of an agreement, the party alleging such agreement must prove it. See sections 135, 136 and 139 of the Evidence Act.
– Tobi JSC. Odutola v. Papersack (2007)
It was not for the appellant to prove that the stick he held did not and could not cause the injuries. It is for the prosecution to prove that its use caused the injuries. The burden does not shift. The standard of proof required is very high. On this point, Lord Diplock says – In criminal proceedings, by an exception to the general rule founded upon considerations of public policy. If the consequence of a finding that a particular fact is proved will be the conviction of the defendant the degree of probability must be so high as to exclude any reasonable doubt that that fact exists. Generally speaking, no onus lies upon a defendant in criminal proceedings to prove or disprove any fact; it is sufficient for his acquittal if any of the acts, which, if they existed, would constitute the offence with which he is charged are ‘not proved’ Per Lord Diplock in Public Prosecutor v. Yuvavaj (1970) A.C. 913 at 921.
— Obaseki, JSC. Adie v. State (1980) – SC24/1978
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