The law is elementary that the burden of proof is on the party who alleges the affirmative. Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
– Niki Tobi, JSC. Calabar CC v. Ekpo (2008)
SHARE ON
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)
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
The law is trite, that in all criminal cases in common law countries like Nigeria which operates from time immemorial, common law jurisprudence, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. This notion is entrenched in Section 135 of the Evidence Act which further put the standard of such proof to be beyond reasonable doubt. SeeOgundiyan Vs The State (1991) 3 NWLR (pt.181)519 or (1991)4 SCNJ 44 or (1991)3 SC 100. It needs to be emphasized however, that the burden of proof always remains on the prosecution, except of course, in few limited circumstances such as in the defence of insanity in which the law presumes an accused person to be sane and therefore it casts the burden of establishing the contrary on the accused.
— A. Sanusi, JSC. Bassey v State (2019) – SC.900/2016
It is trite law that in all criminal trials, the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person rests on the prosecution which has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. What does proof beyond reasonable doubt mean It simply means establishing the guilt of an accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. It does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt or proof to the hilt. In Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER, 372, it was held that “proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt and if the evidence is strong against a man as to leave only a remote probability in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence, “of course it is possible”, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.” — J.I. Okoro, JSC. Chibuike Ofordike V. The State (SC.695/2016, 2019
Proof as required under the Evidence Act is not applicable in arbitral proceedings as provided for in Section 256(1)(a) of the Act which says that: “This Act shall apply to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court established in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, but it shall not apply to – (a) Proceeding be an arbitrator.” Absence of evidence in proof of facts submitted to an arbitrator, required under the Evidence Act, is not a ground for setting aside an arbitral award.
– Garba, JCA. Dunlop v. Gaslink (2018)
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
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry