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!

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

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

proof

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?

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?

GENERALLY IN LAND CASES, THE ONUS OF PROOF LIES ON THE PLAINTIFF

The onus or burden of proof is merely an onus to prove or establish an issue. There cannot be a burden of proof where there are no issues in dispute between the parties, and to discover where the burden lies in any given case, the court has bounden duty to critically look at the pleadings. The general rule is that, it is the plaintiff who seeks a decree of declaration of title that has the onus of proof: Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799; Kwamina Kuma v. Kofi Kuma (1936) 5 WACA 4; Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337; Ayitey Cobblah v. Tettey Gbeke (1947) 12 WACA 294 at 295; Anachuma Nwakaf or and Ors Nwankwo Udegbe and Ors (1963) 1 All NLR 107; Nwankwo Udegbe and Ors v. Anachuma Nwokafor and Ors (P.C) (1963) 1 All NLR 417; Mogaji and Ors v. Odofin and Anor (1978) 4 SC 91; Bello v. Eweka (198 1) 1 SC 101 at 117-120. The norm in civil cases is that the plaintiff starts the process of testimony first and his witnesses if any, thereafter, the defendant proffers his evidence in defence.

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

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?

ACCUSED PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE

It is apposite to stress here too, that an accused person has no duty to prove his innocence in criminal cases. See Alabi v State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt.397) 511; Ariche vs State (1993) 6 NWLR (pt.302) 752.

— Amiru Sanusi, JSC. Ogunleye Tobi v The State (2019) – SC.714/2017

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?

No more related dictum to show.