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

WHAT IS PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

It is trite law that in all criminal trials, the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person rests on the prosecution which has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. What does proof beyond reasonable doubt mean It simply means establishing the guilt of an accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. It does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt or proof to the hilt. In Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER, 372, it was held that “proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt and if the evidence is strong against a man as to leave only a remote probability in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence, “of course it is possible”, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.” — J.I. Okoro, JSC. Chibuike Ofordike V. The State (SC.695/2016, 2019

HE WHO ASSERTS A FACT HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE THOSE FACTS

The appellants in their petition desired the Tribunal to give judgment to them granting them the reliefs they claimed on the basis that the facts they assert in their petition exist. Therefore, they had the primary legal burden to prove the existence of those facts by virtue of S.131(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides that “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 exists.”

— E.A. Agim, JSC. Oyetola v INEC & Ors. (2022) – SC/CV/508/2023

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 to bind the parties concerned. This is unfortunately where the Appellants could not proceed further or substantiate the sentence of fine against the 2nd Respondent. At page 3228 (vol.5) of the record, PW1 and PW12, who gave evidence on the US proceedings did not dispute the fact that the 2nd Respondent was not at any time, charged before any court, caused to make a plea, convicted or sentenced for any offence. Similarly, at page 3464 ( vol.5) of the record, RW2, a US attorney and an associate of the 2nd Respondent, testified that the 2nd Respondent was never convicted or fined for any criminal offence in the United States. In fact, PW1 confirmed that the proceedings in Exhibit PA5 series are civil proceedings, while equally admitting that he never mentioned anything about charge in the proceedings and that he never had one. By virtue of section 135 of the Evidence Act, it is beyond peradventure that the proof of this allegation ought to be beyond reasonable doubt. Section 249 of the Evidence Act clearly prescribes the manner of discharging this proof, by the provision of “certificate purporting to be given under the hand of a police officer” from the US, “containing a copy of the sentence or order and the finger prints of the 2nd Respondent or photographs of the finger prints of the said 2nd Respondent, together with evidence that the finger prints of the person so convicted are those of the 2nd Respondent. See PML (NIG.) LTD. V. F.R.N. (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1619) 448 AT 493.

— Uwani Abba Aji JSC. Peter Obi & Anor. v. INEC & Ors. (SC/CV/937/2023, Thursday the 26th day of October 2023)

WHEN PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN IS MINIMAL

It is settled law that where the party offers no evidence in defence of the case of the plaintiff, the burden placed on the plaintiff is minimal, since there is no evidence to challenge the case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff can use the unchallenged evidence to establish his case. – Onnoghen JSC. Chami v. UBA (2010)