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? Yes 0 No 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

FACTS IN DEFENSE CASE MAY STRENGTHEN CLAIMANT’S CASE, AND MAY BE RELIEF UPON

There is no doubt that in civil matters, the onus of proof shifts as the evidence preponderates. I need to say here that a Plaintiff, as the Respondent herein, must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence … The rule however changes if the Plaintiff finds...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

SUSPICION IS NO PROOF

Suspicion no matter how strong or how grave can never take the place of legal proof. – OMOBONIKE IGE, J.C.A. Etumionu v. AG Delta State (1994) Was this dictum helpful? Yes 0 No 0...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

BURDEN OF PROOF ON HE WHO ALLEGES POSITIVE

The law is elementary that the burden of proof is on the party who alleges the affirmative. Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. – Niki Tobi, JSC. Calabar CC v. Ekpo (2008)...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

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...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE NARCOTICS FINE AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT

What matters always in this kind of situation is that there must be proof of such a sentence. A criminal conviction and sentence must be proved by the CTC of the judgment of court delivered or any admissible way of proving same and the said judgment must reflect all the ingredients of a valid judgment...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

A PLAINTIFF WHO CANNOT DISCHARGE BURDEN OF PROOF MUST LOSE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

PLAINTIFF CANNOT RELY ON ADVERSARIAL CASE WEAKNESS

Membership Required

FACTS IN DEFENSE CASE MAY STRENGTHEN CLAIMANT’S CASE, AND MAY BE RELIEF UPON

Membership Required

SUSPICION IS NO PROOF

Membership Required

BURDEN OF PROOF ON HE WHO ALLEGES POSITIVE

Membership Required

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

Membership Required

THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE NARCOTICS FINE AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Membership Required