-->

Burden of Proof in Civil Cases


Burden of Proof in Civil Cases
Burden of proof in civil cases is primarily determined by substantive law. This is because the facts constituting the essential allegations to be made by the party demanding the enforcement of a legal right or discharge of a legal liability are stipulated by the relevant branch of substantive law.
According to the Evidence Act, section 136 of the Evidence Act Cap E. 14, thereof, now section 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the burden of proof in a suit or proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. This means that the person who would lose the case if on completion of pleadings and no evidence is led has the general burden of proof. Certainly, if no evidence, whatsoever, is adduced in the case, it is the plaintiff who will lose it as none of his material allegations can be proved in such circumstances.
Accordingly, in civil cases, the ultimate burden of establishing a case is as disclosed on the pleadings. Burden of proof in civil cases may be and is often modified by the pleadings which have then the effect of altering the burden and imposing it on the defendant. Therefore, to discover where the onus lies in a given case, the court has to look critically at the pleadings. Where an assertion is admitted by the opponent, there is no issue between the parties and accordingly the question of onus of proof does not arise.
Pleadings are therefore important determinants of the incident of burden of proof in civil cases. Where the defendant traverses the allegations made in the statement of claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the whole of his case. The pleadings show what the facts in issue are and who asserts them. The burden lies on the party who asserts in substance the affirmative of an issue.
The application of burden of proof in civil cases is illustrated by the case of Ededem Archibong v Ntoe Asim Ita (1954) 14 WACA 520, where the appellant tribe claimed against the other two tribes of the town exclusive ownership of an island of about four square miles and called witnesses who gave traditional evidence of user of isolated places. It was held that the burden of proof of ownership of the island was on the appellant and that the burden could not be discharged by evidence of use of a portion of it which might raise a probability but not a presumption of ownership of the whole.
The West African Court of Appeal opined that “the onus is on the plaintiff throughout to prove the title which he seeks to have confirmed. That onus never shifts. It is not sufficient for the plaintiff in such an action to show possession and argue that the defendant has proved no better title”.
In Odesanya v Ewedemi (1962) 1 All NLR 320, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as to the identity of the property the declaration of title to which he had sued the defendant for was conflicting. His witness gave divergent and inconsistent evidence of the boundaries of the land. The High Court, after hearing the evidence adduced by both parties, dismissed the claim on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the onus cast on him of showing the correct dimensions and location of the land. Upholding this decision on appeal, the Federal Supreme Court held that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove title to a defined area to which a declaration can be attached.
The foregoing is based on the underlying general rule on burden of proof which is to the effect that he who asserts must prove. Thus, if it is the plaintiff who alleges the existence of certain facts then it is his duty to prove. Again, persuasive burden remains constantly on the person on whom the burden lies.

©Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com, 2016. (All Rights Reserved) Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Share this: