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

SERVICE OF PROCESS

Again and strictly speaking, the issuing of civil process (here Writ of Summons) should be the concern of the High Court Law and the High Court Rules while the Service of such process will be referable to “the Law made for the Service of civil process of the Courts” – the Sheriffs and Civil Process...

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 WILL FAIL

In civil cases the burden of first proving the existence or non-existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. – Niki Tobi, JSC. Calabar CC...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

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?

DOCUMENT BEING ALLEGED MUST BE PROVED

While oral agreement has the legal capacity to re-order or change the contents of an earlier written agreement, to satisfy the basic requirements of an agreement, the party alleging such agreement must prove it. See sections 135, 136 and 139 of the Evidence Act. – Tobi JSC. Odutola v. Papersack (2007) Was this dictum helpful?...

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

PROOF OF DELIVERY OF DOCUMENT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

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

Membership Required

SERVICE OF PROCESS

Membership Required

BURDEN OF PROOF ON HE WHO WILL FAIL

Membership Required

IMPORTANT POINTS ON BURDEN OF PROOF

Was this dictum helpful?

DOCUMENT BEING ALLEGED MUST BE PROVED

Membership Required

SUSPICION IS NO PROOF

Membership Required