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!

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

proof

BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PLAINTIFF

The general rule in civil cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the party who substantially assert the affirmative before the evidence is gone into. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the person who will fail assuming no evidence had been adduced on either side…Where the plaintiff as in this case, pleads and relies on negligence by conduct or action of the defendant, the plaintiff must prove by evidence the conduct or action and the circumstances of its occurrence, which give rise to the breach of the duty of care owed the plaintiff. And that it is only after this, that the burden shifts to the defendant to adduce evidence to challenge negligence on his part.

– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)

Was this dictum helpful?

BURDEN OF PROOF ON HE WHO ALLEGES POSITIVE

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)

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?

A PLAINTIFF WHO CANNOT DISCHARGE BURDEN OF PROOF MUST LOSE

Para. 28: “This rule, that proof rests on he who asserts the affirmative and not on he who denies, “is an ancient rule founded on consideration of common sense and should not be departed from without strong reasons”, according to Lord Maugham in the case of Constantine Line v. Imperial Smelting Corporation (1942) A.C. 154 at p. 174. In assuming the burden of proof, it means that if at the end of the day the plaintiff has not produced evidence to discharge the burden on him he must lose the decision on the particular issue. However, being a civil matter the burden that the plaintiff assumes is one of a proof by preponderance of probability or sometimes called reasonable probability.”

— Saidykhan v GAMBIA (2010) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/10

Was this dictum helpful?

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

THE TWO FACETS OF BURDEN OF PROOF

The phrase burden of proof in civil cases has two distinct meanings which are; firstly, there is the pleadings, it is the legal burden of proof or the burden of establishing a case. Then secondly, there is the burden of proof in the sense of adducing of evidence, which is described as the evidential burden. The burden of proof in the first sense is always stable, but the burden of proof in the second sense, oscillates and constantly shifts like a chameleon changing its colour, according to how the evidence preponderates on the scale of justice. See the cases of ODUKWE VS OGUNBIYI (1998) LPELR- 2239 PAGE 1 AT 17; (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 561) 339, ADIGHIJE VS NWAOGU (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1209) 119 AT 463 AND OKOYE VS NWANKWO (2014) LPELR-23172 PAGE 1 AT 21; (2014) 15 NWLR (PT. 1429) 93. It is settled law, that in civil cases, the legal burden of proof in the sense of establishing a case lies on the claimant/Petitioner as in this petition, being the person who would fail if no evidence was adduced at all. However, this is not invariably so, as there are circumstances in our adjectival law, when the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. /Respondent as in this petition. See the cases of OSAWARU VS EZEIRUKA (1978) 6-7 SC 135 AT 145, NWAVU VS OKOYE (2008) LPELR-2116 PAGE 1 AT 31, (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 1118) 29 AND EZEMBA VS IBENEME (2004) LPELR-1205 PAGE 1 AT 20-21. AGAGU & ORS V MIMIKO 2009 LPELR 21149 (CA); BOLAJI & ANOR V INEC & ANOR 2019 LPELR 49447 (CA); SEN JULIUS ALIUCH & 1 OR V CHIEF MARTIN N. ELECHI 7 2 ORS 2012 LPELR -7823 SC PG 43 PARAS B-E.

— A. Osadebay, J. APC v INEC & Ors. (EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023, 20th Day of September, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.