BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PLAINTIFF

FACT UNDISPUTED NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

It is trite that facts not disputed are taken as established and therefore need no further proof. The court can legitimately act on such undisputed fact. – Eko JSC. Chemiron v. Stabilini (2018)

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.”

THE PERSON WHO WOULD LOSE HAS THE GENERAL BURDEN

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

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