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!

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

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

proof

BURDEN OF PROOF ALWAYS ON THE PROSECUTION; BURDEN FOR INSANITY ON THE ACCUSED

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

Was this dictum helpful?

PLAINTIFF HAS ONUS TO PROVE LEGAL CAPACITY WHERE CHALLENGED

I think the learned Justice, with respect, was in error when he said that “the onus is on a plaintiff to aver its legal capacity.” I think the correct statement of the law is that where the legal capacity of the plaintiff is challenged by the defendant, the onus is on the former to prove his legal capacity. I believe it is this error that led their Lordships astray. This burden to prove a matter can only be discharged by leading evidence, oral or documentary, in proof of same. The plaintiff was not given the opportunity to do so in this case, before her action was struck out. I think both courts below are wrong in the course taken by them.

— Ogundare, JSC. Bank of Baroda v. Iyalabani (2002) – SC.59/1998

Was this dictum helpful?

LEGAL BURDEN VS EVIDENTIAL BURDEN

Burden of proof is two-fold. The first is the abitity of a plaintiff to establish and prove the entire or reasonable portion of his case before a court of law that can give judgment in his favour. This is always constantly on the plaintiff. The other type is related to particular facts or issues which a party claims exist. It is this burden of proof that oscillates from one party to the other. While the first type of burden of proof is called legal burden or the burden of establishing a case, the second one is called evidential burden Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd v. Ekpo (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt.856) 100 at 122, (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 248) 1667; Ogule Ankpa Agatu Co-operative Group Farming Society v. Nigeria Agricultural and Co-operative Bank (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt.590) 234 … While the legal burden of proof is always stable or static, the burden of proof in the second sense i.e. evidential burden of proof may oscillate constantly accordingly, as one scale of evidence or the other preponderates.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF WILL LIE ON DEFENDANT – WHEN DEFENDANT BECOMES THE ASSERTER OF FACTS

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE THE SCALES ARE EVENLY WEIGHTED, BURDEN IS NOT DISCHARGED

It is also the established law that in a declaration of title, the burden or proof on the plaintiff is not discharged even where the scales are evenly weighted between the parties. See Odiete and Ors. v. Okotie and Ors. (1975) 1 NMLR 178 applied in Saka Owoade and Anor. v. John Abodunrin Onitola and Ors. (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 413.

— Dike & Ors. V. Francis Okoloedo & Ors. (SC.116/1993, 15 Jul 1999)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.