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 TWO DISTINCT MEANINGS OF BURDEN OF PROOF

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

This position reminds one of the decision of this Court in Elemo v Omolade (1968) NMLR 359, where it was held that burden of proof has two distinct and frequently confusing meanings. It means: (a) the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleadings; the burden as it has been called of establishing a case whether by preponderance of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt; and (b) the burden of proof in the sense of introducing evidence. As regards the first meaning attached to the term, “burden of proof”, this rests upon the party whether plaintiff 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 and it is settled as a question of law, remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleadings place it and never shifting in any circumstances 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 later the pleader can frequently vary at will. A negative allegation must not be confounded with the mere traverse of an affirmative one. 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. While the burden in the first sense is always stable, the burden of proof in the second sense may shift consistently more as one scale of evidence or the other preponderates. In this sense, the onus probandi rests upon the parties who would fail if no evidence at all or no more evidence is gone into upon the party asserting the affirmative or the party against whom the tribunal at the time the question arises would give judgment if no further evidence were adduced. The test as to who is to begin is determined by asking how judgment would be entered on the pleadings if no evidence at all were given on either side. The party against whom judgment would in that event be given is entitled to begin.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

proof

CIVIL CASES ARE DECIDED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

The level of proof needed in the circumstances of this case is as per the required standard of proof in civil case, it is a cardinal principle of law that civil cases are decided on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. See the cases of Emeka v. Chuba- Ikpeazu and Ors., (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1583) 345, A.B.C. (Transport Company) Ltd. v. Miss Bimmi Omotoye (2019) LPELR-47829 (SC).

— S.J. Adah, JCA. Luck Guard v. Adariku (2022) – CA/A/1061/2020

Was this dictum helpful?

PLAINTIFF CANNOT RELY ON ADVERSARIAL CASE WEAKNESS

The law does not permit a plaintiff to rely on the weakness of his adversary’s case, unless same supports his claim. – Aderemi JCA. Irawo v. Adedokun (2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

THREE METHODS OF EVIDENTIAL PROOF

The law is also trite that the three methods of evidential proof as held by the Supreme Court Per, Ogunbiyi, J.S.C in the case of OKASHETU V STATE (2016) LPELR-40611 (SC) are to wit: a. Direct evidence of witnesses; b. Circumstantial evidence; and c. By reliance on a confessional statement of an accused person voluntarily made.

– Adamu Jauro, JSC. Enabeli v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

FACTS ADMITTED NEEDS NO FURTHER PROOF

U.D.F.U. v. Kraus (2001) 24 WRN 78 @ p. 91, where it was held firmly inter alia thus: “The law is unequivocal that a fact admitted by the Defendant in his pleading must be taken by a Court of law as established and should therefore be treated as one of the agreed facts between the parties to the suit. Indeed, these facts are directly admitted as in the instant case or deemed admitted as provided for in the Rules of Court dealing with pleadings, such averments do not need to be processed in Court … The judgement of the Court delivered on 17|2|97 based on the admission cannot be faulted.”

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY PROSECUTION BURDEN BECOMES LIGHT

OMOJU v. FRN (2008) LPELR – 2647 (SC), Tobi JSC (of blessed memory), considered the effect of an accused person’s plea of guilt on the burden placed on the prosecution where my noble Lord held thus: “The law is elementary that if an accused person pleads guilty, the burden of proof placed on the prosecution becomes light, like a feather of an ostrich. It no longer remains the superlative and compelling burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. After all, the guilty plea has considerably shortened the distance and brought in some proximity the offence and mens rea or actus reus of the accused as the case may be. That makes it easier to locate causation or causa sine qua non.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.