WHEN PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN IS MINIMAL

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

BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CIVIL CASE – EVIDENTIAL BURDEN

Section 137 of the Evidence Act, 2004 provides for the burden of proof in civil cases. The burden of first proving the existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court could be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. If such party adduces evidence which might reasonably satisfy a court that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced; and so on successively until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with. Where there are conflicting presumptions, the case is the same as if there were evidence. By section 137, the burden of proof is not static. It fluctuates between the parties. Subsection (1) places the first burden on the party against whom the court will give judgment if no evidence is adduced on either side. In other words, the onus probandi is on the party who would fail if no evidence is given in the case. Thereafter, the second burden goes to the adverse party by virtue of subsection (2). And so the burdens change places almost like the colour of a chameleon until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with. By section 137(2), the burden of proof shifts between the parties in the course of giving evidence in the proceedings. From the language of the subsection, there is some amount of versatility in the shifting process of the burden. The shifting process, in the language of the subsection, will be so on successively until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with. Section 139 of the Evidence Act provides for the proof of a particular fact. By the section, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person, but the burden may in course of a case be shifted from one side to the other. In considering the amount of evidence necessary to shift the burden of proof, regard shall be had by the court to the opportunity of knowledge with respect to the fact to be proved which may be possessed by the parties, respectively. (See Abdul-Raham v Commissioner of Police (1971) NMLR 87; Arase v Arase (1981) 5 SC 33; Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Pan Atlantic Shipping and Transport Agencies Ltd (1987) 1 NWLR (Part 49) 212 and Fadlattah v Arewa Textile Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Part 518) 546).

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

PLAINTIFF MUST RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS CASE AND NOT WEAKNESS OF DEFENDANT’S CASE

The onus in such cases lies on the plaintiff to satisfy the court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to the declaration of title claimed. In this regard, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. If this onus is not discharged, the weakness of the defendant’s case will not help him and the proper judgment will be for the defendant. See Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337 and Frempong v. Brempong (1952) 14WACA 13. Any evidence, however, adduced by the defendant which, to any extent is favourable to the plaintiff’s case will undoubtedly go to strengthen the case for the plaintiff. See Josiah Akinola and Another v. Oluwo and Others (1962) 1SCNLR 352, (1962) 1 All NLR 224 at 225, Oduaran v. Asarah (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 137, Idundun and Others v. Daniel Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227.

— Iguh, JSC. Olohunde v. Adeyoju (2000) – SC.15/1995

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.”