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!

BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH MURDER

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

proof

HE WHO ALLEGES MUST PROVE

✓ Para. 25: In Petrostar (Nigeria) Limited V. Blackberry Nigeria Limited & 1 or (2011) CCJELR, the Court in its consideration reiterated the cardinal principle of law that “he who alleges must prove”.

✓ Para. 27: In Front for Liberation of the State Of Cabinda V. Republic Of Angola 5th November 2013, ACHPR, 328/06, 54TH Ordinary Session, where the Plaintiffs brought the application on behalf of the People of Cabinda on alleged violations of Articles 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the African Charter, by infringing on their rights to natural resources, authorizing exploitation activities that did not favor the development of the people of Cabinda and allowing companies to operate in manners that are harmful to the environment and human health. The Commission held that the complainant failed to adduce evidence to support that the people of Cabinda were treated unequally in comparison to other people in Angola in violation of Article 19 of the Charter.

Was this dictum helpful?

SECTION 131 EVIDENCE ACT, HE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE

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

Was this dictum helpful?

PROVING PAYMENT OF MONEY INTO A BANK ACCOUNT

As proof of payment of money into a bank account, the Supreme Court in Saleh v. B.O.N Limited (2006) 6 NWLR Pt. 976 Pg. 316 at 327 held that: “In a situation such as this, where the appellant claimed to have repaid the loan overdraft against the statements of accounts tendered by the respondent bank showing non-payment by the appellant, the proof of payment by the mere ‘ipse dixit’ of the appellant cannot be sufficient proof of repayment of the debt. See Debs v. Cenico (Nig.) Ltd. (1986) 6 SC. 176 (1986) 3 NWLR Pt. 32 Pg. 846. The best way of proving payment of money into a bank account is by the production of bank teller or an acknowledgment showing on the face of it that the Bank has received the payment. A bank teller dully stamped with the official stamp of the Bank and properly initialed by the cashier, constitute prima facie proof of payment of the sum therein indicated and a customer, after producing such a teller or receipt needs not prove more unless payment is being challenged.”

Was this dictum helpful?

GENERALLY IN LAND CASES, THE ONUS OF PROOF LIES ON THE PLAINTIFF

The onus or burden of proof is merely an onus to prove or establish an issue. There cannot be a burden of proof where there are no issues in dispute between the parties, and to discover where the burden lies in any given case, the court has bounden duty to critically look at the pleadings. The general rule is that, it is the plaintiff who seeks a decree of declaration of title that has the onus of proof: Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799; Kwamina Kuma v. Kofi Kuma (1936) 5 WACA 4; Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337; Ayitey Cobblah v. Tettey Gbeke (1947) 12 WACA 294 at 295; Anachuma Nwakaf or and Ors Nwankwo Udegbe and Ors (1963) 1 All NLR 107; Nwankwo Udegbe and Ors v. Anachuma Nwokafor and Ors (P.C) (1963) 1 All NLR 417; Mogaji and Ors v. Odofin and Anor (1978) 4 SC 91; Bello v. Eweka (198 1) 1 SC 101 at 117-120. The norm in civil cases is that the plaintiff starts the process of testimony first and his witnesses if any, thereafter, the defendant proffers his evidence in defence.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

PROOF OF DELIVERY OF DOCUMENT

Agbaje v. Fashola (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1082) 90 at 142. “Where it is alleged that a document was delivered to a person who denies receiving such document, proof of delivery to such person can be established by: (a) dispatch book indicating receipt; or (b) evidence of dispatch by registered post; or (c) evidence of witness, credible enough that the person was served with the document.”

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.