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

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?

THE TWO FACETS OF BURDEN OF PROOF

The phrase burden of proof in civil cases has two distinct meanings which are; firstly, there is the pleadings, it is the legal burden of proof or the burden of establishing a case. Then secondly, there is the burden of proof in the sense of adducing of evidence, which is described as the evidential burden. The burden of proof in the first sense is always stable, but the burden of proof in the second sense, oscillates and constantly shifts like a chameleon changing its colour, according to how the evidence preponderates on the scale of justice. See the cases of ODUKWE VS OGUNBIYI (1998) LPELR- 2239 PAGE 1 AT 17; (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 561) 339, ADIGHIJE VS NWAOGU (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1209) 119 AT 463 AND OKOYE VS NWANKWO (2014) LPELR-23172 PAGE 1 AT 21; (2014) 15 NWLR (PT. 1429) 93. It is settled law, that in civil cases, the legal burden of proof in the sense of establishing a case lies on the claimant/Petitioner as in this petition, being the person who would fail if no evidence was adduced at all. However, this is not invariably so, as there are circumstances in our adjectival law, when the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. /Respondent as in this petition. See the cases of OSAWARU VS EZEIRUKA (1978) 6-7 SC 135 AT 145, NWAVU VS OKOYE (2008) LPELR-2116 PAGE 1 AT 31, (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 1118) 29 AND EZEMBA VS IBENEME (2004) LPELR-1205 PAGE 1 AT 20-21. AGAGU & ORS V MIMIKO 2009 LPELR 21149 (CA); BOLAJI & ANOR V INEC & ANOR 2019 LPELR 49447 (CA); SEN JULIUS ALIUCH & 1 OR V CHIEF MARTIN N. ELECHI 7 2 ORS 2012 LPELR -7823 SC PG 43 PARAS B-E.

— A. Osadebay, J. APC v INEC & Ors. (EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023, 20th Day of September, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PROSECUTION AND IT NEVER SHIFTS

In Alonge v. I.G.P. (1959) 4 FSC 203 at 204; (1959) SCNLR 516, Ademola, CJF stressing the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal case observed: “Now, the commission of a crime by a party must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving that any person is guilty of a crime rests on the person who asserts it and this is the law as laid down in section 137 of the Evidence Ordinance. Cap. 62. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution and it never shifts; and if on the whole evidence the court is left in a state of doubt, the prosecution would have failed to discharge the onus of proof which the law lays upon it and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal”

Was this dictum helpful?

IMPORTANT POINTS ON BURDEN OF PROOF

In the case of Lewis & Peat (N.R.I.) Ltd. v Akhimien (1976) 10 NSCC 360 at 365. They are: (1) “Where there is no issue the question of burden of proof does not arise. (2) On the burden of proof on the pleadings: the rule is that the burden of proof rests on the party whether plaintiff or defendant who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue in Joseph Constantine Steamship Line v. Imperial Smelting Corporation (1942) AC 154 at 174. (3) On the burden of adducing evidence: Used in this sense the burden of proof may shift depending on how the scale of evidence preponderates. Subject to the scale of evidence preponderating, the burden of proof rests squarely on the party who would fail if no evidence at all or no more evidence, as the case may be, were given, on either side. In other words, it again rests before evidence is taken by the court of trial on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue …”

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.