There are 3 ways to prove the commission of a crime as enunciated in the case of Lucky vs State (2021) LPELR 53541 (CA) page 88, which are:
a. The confessional statement of the accused person; b. Through circumstantial evidence; c. Evidence of an eye witness to the crime.
– PER I.S. BDLIYA, J.C.A. Barma v. State (2022) – CA/G/119c/2021
SHARE ON
My noble lords, nobody is disputing or denying the operation of the general principle of proof in civil matters by casting the burden of proof on the plaintiff where the averments contained in the statement of claim were traversed by the defendant. In such a situation, the defendant will have to wait for the plaintiff to lead evidence in proof of his averments. This is understandable. It is also elementary. It accords with common sense as he who invokes the aid of the law should be the first to prove his case. But, where the situation presents a little difficulty is in a statement of defence where the defendant introduces a new issue which transforms his line of defence by transforming him now into an asserter of a fact which requires evidence to be led first in order to discharge the burden now cast on him and in order not to allow the suit to stagnate. By way of example: A sues for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore, the burden of proof is on B, although a defendant. It was who introduced fraud. It was his duty to prove it in order to succeed. It is only by settling the issue of fraud, firstly, in one way or the other that a meaningful progress can be made by the court of trial towards the completion of the entire trial.
— Muhammad JSC. Nnaemeka Okoye & Ors. v. Ogugua Nwankwo (SC. 234/2004, 27 Jun 2014)
Para. 25: “Therefore, where a party asserts a fact, he must produce evidence to substantiate the claim. It is not sufficient simply to challenge a law or State policy or practice in the abstract (actio popularis) without demonstrating how the alleged victim is individually affected. The complaint must be sufficiently substantiated. See Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and Others v. Mauritius (Communication No. R.9/35) 9 April 1981 decided in the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights.”
— Osaghae v Nigeria (2017) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/17
It is apposite to stress here too, that an accused person has no duty to prove his innocence in criminal cases. See Alabi v State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt.397) 511; Ariche vs State (1993) 6 NWLR (pt.302) 752.
— Amiru Sanusi, JSC. Ogunleye Tobi v The State (2019) – SC.714/2017
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
Section 131 of the Evidence Act states that any person who desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts shall assert and prove that those facts exist U. I. C. Ltd Vs T. A. Hammond Nigeria Ltd (1998) NWLR (Pt 565) 340, Okoye Vs Nwankwo (2003) FWLR (Pt 156) 992, Chevron (Nig) Ltd Vs Omoregha (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt 1485) 336.
— H.A.O. Abiru, JCA. P.W. Ltd. v. Mansel Motors (2017) – CA/J/240/2016
It is settled that in a claim for declaratory reliefs, the plaintiff must prove his entitlement thereto, by cogent and credible evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. Indeed, a declaratory relief will not be granted on the basis of an admission by the adverse party. See MOHAMMED V WAMMAKO (2018)7 NWLR (pt 1619) 573 at 591 – 592. — M.L. Shuaibu, JCA. Ekpo v GTB (2018) – CA/C/324/2013
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry