PLAINTIFF MUST RELY ON HIS OWN STRENGTH, NOT WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENCE

PLAINTIFF MUST RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS CASE AND NOT WEAKNESS OF DEFENDANT’S CASE

The onus in such cases lies on the plaintiff to satisfy the court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to the declaration of title claimed. In this regard, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. If this onus is not discharged, the weakness of the defendant’s case will not help him and the proper judgment will be for the defendant. See Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337 and Frempong v. Brempong (1952) 14WACA 13. Any evidence, however, adduced by the defendant which, to any extent is favourable to the plaintiff’s case will undoubtedly go to strengthen the case for the plaintiff. See Josiah Akinola and Another v. Oluwo and Others (1962) 1SCNLR 352, (1962) 1 All NLR 224 at 225, Oduaran v. Asarah (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 137, Idundun and Others v. Daniel Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227.

— Iguh, JSC. Olohunde v. Adeyoju (2000) – SC.15/1995

THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE NARCOTICS FINE AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT

What matters always in this kind of situation is that there must be proof of such a sentence. A criminal conviction and sentence must be proved by the CTC of the judgment of court delivered or any admissible way of proving same and the said judgment must reflect all the ingredients of a valid judgment to bind the parties concerned. This is unfortunately where the Appellants could not proceed further or substantiate the sentence of fine against the 2nd Respondent. At page 3228 (vol.5) of the record, PW1 and PW12, who gave evidence on the US proceedings did not dispute the fact that the 2nd Respondent was not at any time, charged before any court, caused to make a plea, convicted or sentenced for any offence. Similarly, at page 3464 ( vol.5) of the record, RW2, a US attorney and an associate of the 2nd Respondent, testified that the 2nd Respondent was never convicted or fined for any criminal offence in the United States. In fact, PW1 confirmed that the proceedings in Exhibit PA5 series are civil proceedings, while equally admitting that he never mentioned anything about charge in the proceedings and that he never had one. By virtue of section 135 of the Evidence Act, it is beyond peradventure that the proof of this allegation ought to be beyond reasonable doubt. Section 249 of the Evidence Act clearly prescribes the manner of discharging this proof, by the provision of “certificate purporting to be given under the hand of a police officer” from the US, “containing a copy of the sentence or order and the finger prints of the 2nd Respondent or photographs of the finger prints of the said 2nd Respondent, together with evidence that the finger prints of the person so convicted are those of the 2nd Respondent. See PML (NIG.) LTD. V. F.R.N. (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1619) 448 AT 493.

— Uwani Abba Aji JSC. Peter Obi & Anor. v. INEC & Ors. (SC/CV/937/2023, Thursday the 26th day of October 2023)

BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PROSECUTION AND IT NEVER SHIFTS

In Alonge v. I.G.P. (1959) 4 FSC 203 at 204; (1959) SCNLR 516, Ademola, CJF stressing the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal case observed: “Now, the commission of a crime by a party must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving that any person is guilty of a crime rests on the person who asserts it and this is the law as laid down in section 137 of the Evidence Ordinance. Cap. 62. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution and it never shifts; and if on the whole evidence the court is left in a state of doubt, the prosecution would have failed to discharge the onus of proof which the law lays upon it and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal”

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)