In civil cases, the ultimate burden of establishing a case is as disclosed on the pleadings. The person who would lose the case if on completion of pleadings and no evidence is led on either side has the general burden of proof. See Elemo & Ors. v. Omolade & Ors (1968) NMLR 359. See also section 137(1) of the Evidence Act.
— O. Ogwuegbu, JSC. Uzokwe v. Densy Industries Nig. Ltd. & Anor. (2002) – SC.134/1999
SHARE ON
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
Para. 61: “It is trite law that he who alleges bears the burden of making out a prima facie case in support of his averments, the court in its consideration reiterated the cardinal principle of law that “he who alleges must prove”. Therefore, where a party asserts 26 a fact, he must produce evidence to substantiate the claim. The Applicant has not been able to establish that he was treated differently from other members in similar situation with him. In the absence of evidence to support a different treatment in similar situations, the Applicant’s claim of violation of equality before the law and freedom from discrimination is hereby dismissed.”
— Boley v Liberia & Ors. (2019) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/19
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
OKOYE & ORS v. NWANKWO (2014) LPELR-23172 (SC) wherein Per Peter-Odili, JSC opined thus: “Burden of proof is two-fold. The first is the ability of the 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 of the burden of establishing a case, the second one is called evidential”.
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
✓ 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.
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry